Not necessarily. Some wheels read "NOT DOT approved military use only" some oshkosh trucks read the following on their data plate. The safety standard is the argument the states have made in some states.
-
Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!
Colorado Bill SB19-054 RE: (Former) Military Vehicle Motor Vehicle Regulation
- Thread starter donkren
- Start date
- 307
- 153
- 43
- Location
- Sweeden, KY
If I had a business affected by this, I would explore whether the legislation and/or its application amounts to a Bill of Attainder, or more properly, since it is not a criminal matter, a Bill of Pains and Penalties, as described here:
View attachment No Bill of Attainder or Ex Post Facto Law shall be passed.pdf
This is good in the first paragraph, still resonates even though it was written in 1833:
In such cases, the legislature assumes judicial magistracy, pronouncing upon the guilt of the party without any of the common forms and guards of trial, and satisfying itself with proofs, when such proofs are within its reach, whether they are conformable to the rules of evidence, or not. In short, in all such cases, the legislature exercises the highest power of sovereignty, and what may be properly deemed an irresponsible despotic discretion, being governed solely by what it deems political necessity or expediency, and too often under the influence of unreasonable fears, or unfounded suspicions.
Of course this is a State matter, not about limits on the federal legislature. However, in the Colorado Legislative Drafting Manual, it says this on page 1-5 in the discussion of the supremacy clause:
State legislative power is further limited by section 8 of article I of the U.S. Constitution, which reserves certain subject areas to regulation by Congress. Such areas include the regulation of interstate commerce, bankruptcy, and immigration. Section 4 of article I limits state control of elections for U.S. senators and representatives by requiring that state legislation be subject to regulations that are passed by Congress. Section 10 of article I imposes express limitations on state sovereignty by prohibiting activities ranging from entering treaties to passing laws that would have the effect of a bill of attainder, an ex post facto law, or a law impairing the obligation of contracts.
coachgeo
Well-known member
- 5,123
- 3,450
- 113
- Location
- North of Cincy OH
with today's modern technology all it would take is a technology wiz to add such vehicles as you describe into a states database so they get flagged as not "street" title-able without changes that meet FED standards signed off by xyz agency.
Oshkosh makes vehicles for the commercial market and is an approved manufacturer so it would be harder to do it since the truck can be made for municipal, industrial, or personal use and sold to even an individual right out of oshkosh. That would be a good arguement
- 1,504
- 1,169
- 113
- Location
- TN
I'm looking for a legal angle, not the exception. There are always exceptions. None of my wheels say this.
Another Ahab
Well-known member
- 17,990
- 4,535
- 113
- Location
- Alexandria, VA
Subscribed
41cl8m5
Active member
- 254
- 36
- 28
- Location
- Littleton, CO
I understand the profiling thing but all cops think that all motor vehicles on the road need a license plate posted on them so getting pulled over for not having one in my circumstances and thoughts is not profiling just not knowing all the laws on the books. In Colorado just a couple years back the people voted to remove some laws that are considered obsolete. One that I could not believe was still on the books was in the city of Denver if you had a horseless cairrage you must have a Flagger both in front and behind you waving a red flag for your mode of transportation or you will be fined $5.00 a may spend up to 2 days in jail. Could you see enforcing that one, all "horseless cairrages" are cars and trucks.
I could be wrong on this one but I was taught that either the American Highway Act or the Interstate Highway Act (not sure of the name) was for the need of our military to be able to move effectively and efficiently within this nation. It was sold to the people for the same reason but for us to use freely. The Military has the ability to have primary use of the roads for any reason. As long as it is a mission requirement to use the road and no state can restrict the use. Now the Military has had and still has vehicles that are not up to the DOT safety standards. Most of the safety standard upgrades started around the 70s but the big ones where the steel bars in the doors and airbags those were the 80s and 90s of course there were more, Just making a point that the M998 had canvas doors, aluminum body, and no airbags so it can not be considered within safety specifications of the DOT Highway use. There is the problem, on road or off road with registration and titles with the states. I pointed out one subsect of a vehicle to make the point and that is all. I don't want to open up the full can of worms but it is not a simple answer
I could be wrong on this one but I was taught that either the American Highway Act or the Interstate Highway Act (not sure of the name) was for the need of our military to be able to move effectively and efficiently within this nation. It was sold to the people for the same reason but for us to use freely. The Military has the ability to have primary use of the roads for any reason. As long as it is a mission requirement to use the road and no state can restrict the use. Now the Military has had and still has vehicles that are not up to the DOT safety standards. Most of the safety standard upgrades started around the 70s but the big ones where the steel bars in the doors and airbags those were the 80s and 90s of course there were more, Just making a point that the M998 had canvas doors, aluminum body, and no airbags so it can not be considered within safety specifications of the DOT Highway use. There is the problem, on road or off road with registration and titles with the states. I pointed out one subsect of a vehicle to make the point and that is all. I don't want to open up the full can of worms but it is not a simple answer
Last edited:
Another Ahab
Well-known member
- 17,990
- 4,535
- 113
- Location
- Alexandria, VA
coachgeo
Well-known member
- 5,123
- 3,450
- 113
- Location
- North of Cincy OH
Most trucks the size of military FMTV, Deuces and larger are exempt from safety air bags.
not relevant side note.... but you bring up a good point... I might explore using motorcycle airbag vest. I wear similar on my motorcycle anyway....
Last edited:
Another Ahab
Well-known member
- 17,990
- 4,535
- 113
- Location
- Alexandria, VA
- 18,538
- 5,820
- 113
Yup... A Motorcyclist's Personal Airbag.????!!!!
If its tether is tugged you inflate like the MICHELIN MAN!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelin_Man
Last edited:
- 464
- 267
- 63
- Location
- Seville, OH
While there is mention of Expedition vehicle builders, there is scant mention in this thread of the private owners who in many cases have invested thousands into their former LMTV/FMTV rigs.
These individual owners who purchased a truck when it was perfectly legal to do so with the intent of on road personal use, stand to lose their entire investment!
From what I read here those vehicles are not included in the efforts to combat the CO law by those who own Historical Military Vehicles...
If we don't all stick together, and instead become "breed specific" then it's possible that CO law ends up with a revision that only allows Historical MV on the roads....
I for one would gladly donate to a GoFundMe if I KNOW that ALL MV's are being fought for. I may be in error, but that's not the vibe I'm picking up.
Knowing politicians, and the push our nation has experienced resulting in an anti-military attitude of the liberal faction, the move to ban these scary "assault trucks" from the highway will not stop with CO.
I experienced the division among dog owners 30 yrs ago when the anti-pitbull media coverage swept the nation. Owners of other breeds didn't think it affected them, so they stayed quiet.... then when insurance companies started calling out the Dobermans and Shepherds etc.. all of a sudden it was important. If they had all stuck together 30 yrs ago a lot of breed specific laws would never have passed.
This CO law is like that, it will eventually affect all states just like the laws against Pitbulls went nationwide.
So when we fight this, doing it as a united group of owners we stand a chance, if we divide into Historical, farm users, Expedition users, commercial users... we will not have the clout and while some may succeed, others will not.
So lets go for a united action - no matter where we live or the purpose of our MV!
These individual owners who purchased a truck when it was perfectly legal to do so with the intent of on road personal use, stand to lose their entire investment!
From what I read here those vehicles are not included in the efforts to combat the CO law by those who own Historical Military Vehicles...
If we don't all stick together, and instead become "breed specific" then it's possible that CO law ends up with a revision that only allows Historical MV on the roads....
I for one would gladly donate to a GoFundMe if I KNOW that ALL MV's are being fought for. I may be in error, but that's not the vibe I'm picking up.
Knowing politicians, and the push our nation has experienced resulting in an anti-military attitude of the liberal faction, the move to ban these scary "assault trucks" from the highway will not stop with CO.
I experienced the division among dog owners 30 yrs ago when the anti-pitbull media coverage swept the nation. Owners of other breeds didn't think it affected them, so they stayed quiet.... then when insurance companies started calling out the Dobermans and Shepherds etc.. all of a sudden it was important. If they had all stuck together 30 yrs ago a lot of breed specific laws would never have passed.
This CO law is like that, it will eventually affect all states just like the laws against Pitbulls went nationwide.
So when we fight this, doing it as a united group of owners we stand a chance, if we divide into Historical, farm users, Expedition users, commercial users... we will not have the clout and while some may succeed, others will not.
So lets go for a united action - no matter where we live or the purpose of our MV!
- 1,504
- 1,169
- 113
- Location
- TN
Agree completely. These regulations move like cancer from state to state, yet no one has provided the source of the cancer. Who is behind these laws? We need an investigative reporter.
It is in your best interest to keep your mouth closed in those states that there are no pending Bills going up for votes or have been introduced that are against MVs. This is what happened in Louisiana, someone started calling around due to a little mishap at their DMV on a particular truck. That by its stated selling standard is not an on road vehicle but they created a crap storm that took alot of work to get it corrected by their state. If they don't know about it then do not wake a sleeping giant
Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, Pennsylvania and a few others have their own former military vehicle laws and even have their own license plates for it. There is a thread here I believe on the battle Swiss went thru to get it signed.
This bill the way it was introduced was a fair representation of what the surplus trucks should be used for. It was just chopped up and reworded and flipped 180 and went against the MV because someone probably saw the HMMWV debacles of "not street legal" so they just said rather than having to subject one or the other they just said everything.
Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, Pennsylvania and a few others have their own former military vehicle laws and even have their own license plates for it. There is a thread here I believe on the battle Swiss went thru to get it signed.
This bill the way it was introduced was a fair representation of what the surplus trucks should be used for. It was just chopped up and reworded and flipped 180 and went against the MV because someone probably saw the HMMWV debacles of "not street legal" so they just said rather than having to subject one or the other they just said everything.
Last edited:
- 1,504
- 1,169
- 113
- Location
- TN
Last edited:
URSATDX
Member
- 138
- 19
- 18
- Location
- So Jersey, NJ
I'm from Jersey.
The most stupid of laws always get passed regarding the 2nd Amendment and immigration.
Please be quiet or you'll stir or dear leader, Mr. Murphy.
He loves to out-do the other States.
Quiet please.
The most stupid of laws always get passed regarding the 2nd Amendment and immigration.
Please be quiet or you'll stir or dear leader, Mr. Murphy.
He loves to out-do the other States.
Quiet please.
coachgeo
Well-known member
- 5,123
- 3,450
- 113
- Location
- North of Cincy OH
actually.... there is a manufacturer that does NOT use a tether...... uses accelerometers and other sensors. Teather types are are more cost effective. Not been tested in a vehicle though.... but that is another topic
Last edited by a moderator:
Another Ahab
Well-known member
- 17,990
- 4,535
- 113
- Location
- Alexandria, VA
My buddy who told me the "son's last birthday" joke, said that his colleague in that Emergency Room held the belief that helmets for motorcyclists was all wrong, and that neck braces were what really made sense:
- Apparently it's the spinal injury (broken neck) that is the real issue with a motorcycle
- The guy said better to be killed outright, than to survive the accident as a paraplegic for the next 40 years
- The helmet ensures you will be clear-headed for those 40 years, but paralyzed
- The neck brace ensures that, if you aren't killed outright by a brain injury (in which case dead is better than "vegetable"), that you will have motor control of all four limbs
It was one doctor's opinion.
Last edited:
Another Ahab
Well-known member
- 17,990
- 4,535
- 113
- Location
- Alexandria, VA
Uh-oh
- 1,813
- 1,518
- 113
- Location
- Orlando, FL
I talked to our Colorado House rep at the 4th of July festival, and she had no idea that the function of the law had been reversed in committee. She said something like "Oh, that law was designed to protect MV owners" (which I assume refers to the original version), and was unaware that what passed now bans them. Not good. However, she sounded interested in working to reverse it, if what I was telling her was true (she's very supportive of this kind of stuff, veterans bills, 2A, etc.).