Legal Issues that could effect all MV Owners

[zout]

Patiently awaiting NEWS
Patiently awaiting NEWS
hold it - wait for it - its coming

(still time to donate folks)

 

[Robo McDuff]

I am waiting

 

[swiss]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am pleased to announce we now have an official Bill, Senate Bill 392. I am meeting with the Transportation Committee on Monday to explain the details in the Bill and why it is important to the good citizens of the fine state of Georgia! If approved, then the Team has to get the Bill to the floor for a vote from the Senate. Then we have many more steps before it becomes a law, but I will outline those along the way. No war was ever won without winning first key battles.

Getting this far is a huge victory for the team!

Project Tasks and Current Status

Step 1: Understand Problem: Completed
Step 2: Determine path to solve problem: Completed
Step 3: Research how to address problem: Completed
Step 4: Assemble a team that can get things done: Completed
Step 5: Meet with Team and establish game plan: Completed
Step 6: Draft Legislative Changes: Completed
Step 7: Review and Submit Revisions on proposed Legislation: Completed
Step 8: Get assigned a Bill Number: Completed
Step 9: Get Bill approved and moved out of Committee: Scheduled 02.20.14

 

[papabear]

Looks like the "A TEAM" is on the ball!

 

[SCSG-G4]

Only 300 more steps before it becomes law. Donate, and then donate again!

 

[mtullis]

Awesome work, Thanks!

 

[swiss]

For those following along, I will introduce some of the components that make up the proposed law change and discuss some of its relevance to other states.

The foundation for the bill is to first define what is a Military Vehicle. The following is the new proposed definition of a military vehicle.

"(17.1) 'Former military motor vehicle' means a motor vehicle which operates on the ground, including a trailer, that was manufactured for use in any country's military forces and is maintained to represent its military design, regardless of the vehicle's size, weight, or year of manufacture. Such term shall not include motor vehicles armed for combat or vehicles owned or operated by this state, the United States, or any foreign government."

The word "Former" was chosen to follow the current terminology that is used in the Texas law and most accurately describes these vehicles. As other states look at making changes to their laws we should work to be consistent in the definition of these vehicles. The only 2 states that I have been able to identify that today define a Military Motor Vehicle are the following and I am sure I am missing some:

1.) Texas; their definition is a bit more complicated as it allows for original markings to be used as the license number
2.) Wisconsin: their definition specifically excludes tracked vehicles

This language as far as I can tell is the best definition as it is accurate and does not serious place restrictions that could later cause problems.

If others have looked up their state laws and have the definition of a MV, please post in this thread so we have a collection of definitions that I can assimilate for reference.

 

[zout]

I know someone who has almost all of them in files aready - cost ya $500 a smack to donate to the lobbyist to get them each - or free on the web to look them up.

Don't know about you but all this coming down to the end is making me excited.

 

[Tinwoodsman]

After all the hard work and many hours you and Swiss put in, you should be excited. This effort will go down in history.

 

[zout]

HEY COUNT - count this.
with 23,284 views - if each viewer would have donated ONLY .15 cents the bucket would contain nearly $3,500.00 at this time.

Tell me them pennies don;t add up - that is why I still pick them up off the ground wether heads up or heads down.

 

[Robo McDuff]

Only 300 more steps before it becomes law. Donate, and then donate again!

As the man said, only a few steps more, but in the meanwhile its time to split the mainbrace; a tot for all hands is definitely in order.

And for the rest of the man's post:

​

 

[Tinstar]

Many thanks for all the hard and time consuming work!

Just a suggestion, but if anyone knows anyone in the Atlanta (etc.) GA media (TV) that would help with this.
It is a powerful possible resource and would definitely help with exposure.

Maybe do a MV rally at the capital and invite the media to ride along, or something along those lines.
The newspaper would/could help also.
Most people like MV's and a State Senator(s) helping pass this would love all of the veterans votes and face time on TV.


Just a thought

 

[Tinstar]

A trip to the station in several MV's and a copy of the bill and why it's needed will usually do the trick if no one has a media inside contact.

 

[Robo McDuff]

Normally, I would say go for it with as much media coverage as possible in a fight. Probably over-cautious here, but it seems that the gang quietly without many waves has achieved a lot, maybe because nobody really cares. Media means political hardball and exposure that might wake somebody up to counter this, if only to get his face in the media.

Good call to come up with it but I think Swiss and the lobbyist should initiate that one or stay away as not to rock a smoothly drifting boat.

 

[zout]

Tinstar - good idea but the group voted NOT to get the media of any type involved - they could swing this in any direction they want with no control from the positive input we want.
Also another thing to consider is - there are a lot of folks out there that may not want these on the road as well - getting wind of this more than they know now could be detrimental come voting time.

We just saw more negative that could arise from this than any good we could get across - nearly almost all the general public out there does not care.

Swiss will be posting some news between now and Tuesday of this week as this progresses.

 

[Tinstar]

A double edged sword to be sure.
I am not in the loop so I don't have a feel for the efforts going on other than what's posted here.

There are pro's and con's of the media and with the good points brought up, I agree with Zout and Robo.

Keep up the fight!!!

 

[poppop]

I have been interviewed for television on farming issues before, and after cutting and editing what I said on TV did not have the meaning I intended. I think we are right to keep this simple. Its working and I am fully confident it will pass without any big shows.

 

[swiss]

We are in good shape as far as attention right now. The main folks that matter are those that are going to be voting and we have been working on their support for the last few months. After Monday's committee vote i will give all the Georgia folks some direction on how to contact their senators to ask them to support this bill.

I have to echo Poppop on the media and they love to twist the story. It is amazing how the interviews that I watched during the ice storm were twisted in print to totally portray a different story. Sad.

 

[Tow4]

For those following along, I will introduce some of the components that make up the proposed law change and discuss some of its relevance to other states.

The foundation for the bill is to first define what is a Military Vehicle. The following is the new proposed definition of a military vehicle.

"(17.1) 'Former military motor vehicle' means a motor vehicle which operates on the ground, including a trailer, that was manufactured for use in any country's military forces and is maintained to represent its military design, regardless of the vehicle's size, weight, or year of manufacture. Such term shall not include motor vehicles armed for combat or vehicles owned or operated by this state, the United States, or any foreign government."

The word "Former" was chosen to follow the current terminology that is used in the Texas law and most accurately describes these vehicles. As other states look at making changes to their laws we should work to be consistent in the definition of these vehicles. The only 2 states that I have been able to identify that today define a Military Motor Vehicle are the following and I am sure I am missing some:

1.) Texas; their definition is a bit more complicated as it allows for original markings to be used as the license number
2.) Wisconsin: their definition specifically excludes tracked vehicles

This language as far as I can tell is the best definition as it is accurate and does not serious place restrictions that could later cause problems.

If others have looked up their state laws and have the definition of a MV, please post in this thread so we have a collection of definitions that I can assimilate for reference.

Here is Florida's definition:

Section 320.086(6), Florida Statutes, states: “Former military vehicle” means a vehicle, including a trailer, regardless of the vehicle's size, weight, or year of manufacture, that was manufactured for use in any country's military forces and is maintained to represent its military design and markings accurately.

I would keep the definition short and sweet and leave off the stuff about armed for combat and state or other government entities. A lot of people use dummy guns for display and some bonehead will complain. Government entities have other avenues for licensing vehicles.

Good luck.

 

[IsaLandr]

I have to agree with Tow4, I think it's best to keep the definition as short and simple as possible. Cover all bases as succinctly as possible, casting as wide a definition as possible allowing for no legal exemption loopholes that clerical drones can exploit to deny an MV's legal operation. As already mentioned the various governments have their own avenues and don't need inclusion, and there are enough people either using dummy weapons mockups, or in some cases live mounts, for this to cause unnecessary complications.

Though if I had my preferences, the GA law would also follow the Texas example and include a clause for using original unit identifiers and bumper numbers instead of license plates, at the owner's preference. I know I'd rather run bumper numbers and not mar my trucks with an ugly out-of-place license plate if I didn't have to. The more states who make this exception, set the example for other states to follow, making it easier for all of us who would go that route if we could.