LOUISIANA PROPOSED NEW LAW : HB 549 Provides for Military Surplus Motor Vehicles

[juanprado]

I do want to point out in the meeting last week ALL LA parties agreed that even if the bill was not what everyone wanted, the Senator and the dmv administrators would be open to work with us again next year. Football analogy was used that we can get a few first downs even if we don't score the touchdown, the ball has been moved forward and much closer to the goal line. YMMV

The fact that many restrictions have already been removed shows their willingness to work with owners.

Just as a point of reference that language can be changed at any point by the Senators and Reps on the floor if enough votes are secured but if the bill never leaves the committee, we are dead in the water.

It is a mixed bag but allows the 52 owners revoked a way back and allows continued registration/title of new purchases and new owners.

Do you want to win the battle and lose the war? Win the war and lose the battle? Or plain lose both?

Believe me when I say this has been an eye opener for me. Where are those Pat O' Brien gift cards......?

 

[juanprado]

I tried to send you a private message but your quota is full.

Please call me 225-665-7427.

Box is clear for now......

 

[gentrysgarage]

Where are those Pat O' Brien gift cards......?

Working on it, but for now here's this:

 

[Al Capone]

What Juan posted is true . We can’t get everything on first go round . And I love how the people who don’t like it has done nothing to try and help us . Has not spent past couple months of all their spare time doing research and finding documents to shoot down the omv decisions on this . And spending their own money when needed .

 

[lowell66dart]

New member here. I have been wanting a military vehicle for some time and was researching the title issues when I found this site. Nice to see some Louisiana guys trying to make changes to benefit sooo many folks. Excellent work guys. Thanks you.

 

[juanprado]

Rev Draft of Sb 549

attached is the pdf draft that will be considered Thu. and a note I was given:

[FONT=&quot]Attached are a copy of the amendments (draft) that should be offered. There could be technical changes between now and Thursday but this is what staff provided Senator Hewitt yesterday.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The bill, itself, will not reflect the amendments until they are adopted by the committee and reported by the Senate. Since the meeting is Thursday, there would be an engrossed copy of the bill by Wednesday.[/FONT]

 

[RyanW]

That is exactly why you need to go. I plan on raising enough objections that the committee will either have to amend it numerous times, table it, or vote it down.
Even with the changes, it is not a good bill because it does not take the collector into account at all. The definition is too vague.

I will be there to counter ever argument you try to make, considering this Bill does not apply to your half track. Tracks aren't allowed on the road per a completely different Statute. This is the first Bill, that will eliminate all clauses to stop any prior, current or future military vehicle from being excluded if stamped with "Off Road Use Only" on the SF-97 or Bill of Sale. It is replicating the current mini truck law so that it easier to get passed so we can start building case law. It puts a connection from the Mil-Std 1180B to the FMVSS. It is a building block for all future legislation.

This bill has the approval of State Police, OMV, Transportation Committee Members and Motor Vehicle Inspection. It is designed to assist Post 1966 built vehicles, as well as any built with short serial numbers instead of 17 digit VINs that were built since 1981.

All of the offices that have now switched from their original refusal and revoke mindset, due to the a small group of us putting in the work to prove that our vehicles are safe for both the occupants and other people on the road.

The 55mph exclusion has to do with federal use laws, not state, but must be written, for now, to get passed. It's far easier to change one line, one bill at a time. They took out most of the restrictions after our meeting with the Senator and the OMV, but we have to accept some short comings if we want to have ANY hope of passing legislation.

 

[Al Capone]

Well said Ryan .

 

[1943 Halftrack]

I will be there to counter ever argument you try to make, considering this Bill does not apply to your half track. Tracks aren't allowed on the road per a completely different Statute. This is the first Bill, that will eliminate all clauses to stop any prior, current or future military vehicle from being excluded if stamped with "Off Road Use Only" on the SF-97 or Bill of Sale. It is replicating the current mini truck law so that it easier to get passed so we can start building case law. It puts a connection from the Mil-Std 1180B to the FMVSS. It is a building block for all future legislation.

This bill has the approval of State Police, OMV, Transportation Committee Members and Motor Vehicle Inspection. It is designed to assist Post 1966 built vehicles, as well as any built with short serial numbers instead of 17 digit VINs that were built since 1981.

All of the offices that have now switched from their original refusal and revoke mindset, due to the a small group of us putting in the work to prove that our vehicles are safe for both the occupants and other people on the road.

The 55mph exclusion has to do with federal use laws, not state, but must be written, for now, to get passed. It's far easier to change one line, one bill at a time. They took out most of the restrictions after our meeting with the Senator and the OMV, but we have to accept some short comings if we want to have ANY hope of passing legislation.

But the law doesn't say that it is referring to vehicles with a SF-97 or Bill of Sale stamped "off-road". That is my objection. It doesn't say anything about post 1966 built vehicles or vehicles with short vins after 1981. The bill says, "Military Surplus Motor Vehicle means a multipurpose or tactical vehicle that was manufactured by or under the direction of the United States Armed Forced for off-road use and subsequently authorized for sale to civilians."

If you do a google search for Willis Jeep, it will tell you that it is an off-road vehicle. If the law wants to apply to the stipulations you sighted, then it needs to say that.

BTW, we trailer our 1943 Halftrack but we have a 1957 AMG Deuce-and-a-Half. The Deuce is currently registered as an antique.

I will strenuously object to this bill unless it specifically states what it means to accomplish.

 

[RyanW]

Then you don't understand the law, nor the OMV administrative procedures. You don't like it because you don't think it benefits you directly, which is pretty selfish. Your 57 is pre 1966 so AGAIN, NHTSA and FMVSS doesn't apply, so AGAIN, this law doesn't affect you in any way. You really need to consider the type of person you are if you plan to sabotage a bill causes no harm to anyone, but only stands to help dozens, if not hundreds of current and future owners of post 1966 vehicles.

 

[1943 Halftrack]

You are correct in saying that I don't understand. Please stay away from personal insults. I've had lots of experience in this area and am just reading the law as it stands.

What makes you think that the law as stated only applies to post 1966 vehicles? It doesn't say that.

 

[1943 Halftrack]

Then you don't understand the law, nor the OMV administrative procedures. You don't like it because you don't think it benefits you directly, which is pretty selfish. Your 57 is pre 1966 so AGAIN, NHTSA and FMVSS doesn't apply, so AGAIN, this law doesn't affect you in any way. You really need to consider the type of person you are if you plan to sabotage a bill causes no harm to anyone, but only stands to help dozens, if not hundreds of current and future owners of post 1966 vehicles.

I have advocated for numerous bills in numerous areas but never for self-gratification. As soon as I knew this was an issue, I started researching.

BTW, this is John's wife, Ann. No one has ever accused me of being selfish.

If this bill does what you says it does, then I'm all for it. But I just don't see any language that makes me believe that's what it does. If that's what you want, then get this bill amended to say that or get another bill introduced.

BTW, you probably can't come back next year on this bill because it will be a physical session.

There is no need to be so testy and start insulting me. I wish I had been aware of this sooner because I would have attacked it immediately as you have.

I'm really sincere in asking why you think this bill applies to post 1966 vehicles.

 

[undysworld]

delete

 

[98G]

Idaho got it right. I defy you to misinterpret this -

"
10 49-458. MILITARY VEHICLES. Notwithstanding any provisions of law to
11 the contrary, a vehicle built for the United States armed forces may be reg-
12 istered and operated on public highways of this state,"

 

[juanprado]

Idaho got it right. I defy you to misinterpret this -

"
10 49-458. MILITARY VEHICLES. Notwithstanding any provisions of law to
11 the contrary, a vehicle built for the United States armed forces may be reg-
12 istered and operated on public highways of this state,"

Yes, And I did point that Bill out to them specifically.......

 

[1943 Halftrack]

Ryan, Ann, etc.,

Seems to me that it's as tough to write a good bill as it is to pass it, maybe tougher. Once passed, they can often be interpreted in unintended ways. A law that's too vague allows arbitrary application by DMV (in this case). You definitely want it to do what you want, as much as you want it to prevent what you don't want. Here are a few thoughts:

Being extra specific can be a good thing. There is nothing to prevent your bill from stating that it does one thing AND that it does not do the other thing, ie.: "You can register these vehicles, and those vehicles are not prevented from registration.". A good bill should provide clarity for owners and DMV.

Ryan, be sure you all are carefully (skeptically) reading the whole bill, and how it fits within the rest of your existing laws. (I'm assuming you are, but... ) Don't just take the legislative staff's word for it - if you don't like what's written, ask to have it redone. You know what the law is intended to do, and you don't intend it to affect Ann's era vehicles, but is that intent clearly specified in the description of the bill? If that is the intent (to benefit newer vehicles but not prohibit older vehicles), is there any reason to not add a clause specifying that the law does not affect the older vehicles? Would the bill benefit from specifying that those vehicles can still register?

Ann, ditto my assumption about careful reading. If you feel the need to object to the bill, then go now to your legislators and the author/s and represent your concerns / interests. There may be a good reason for why the bill is the way it is. Maybe they'll explain it to you and you'll be able to support it. But bills can always be amended too, and it's better to get it right than get it fast. Ultimately you'll have to make the choice to support or object. I don't think that's being selfish, but it's not blindsiding things either.

You are stronger politically if you can all support the bill as one. Good luck all.

Thanks. The Senator has made it clear that she doesn't want to talk with anyone else. I have emailed her and everyone on the committee. I may do so again. Never want to blindside anyone but it's much tougher to amend a bill than it is to get it right. Once DMV writes the rules and regulations based on what this says, it will be almost impossible to amend.

My husband and I are members of the MVPA of America. He participates in lots of re-enactments with a lot of his friends. Because of my experience with advocating at the capital, they asked me to get involved. I wish I had known about this earlier.

 

[Al Capone]

I am a mvpa member also and have been in contact with the Vice President thru this whole thing .

 

[Al Capone]

The restrictions on military vehicles in our state are already there . The omv did this few months ago . Some are affected and some are not . Yet

 

[1943 Halftrack]

The restrictions on military vehicles in our state are already there . The omv did this few months ago . Some are affected and some are not . Yet

What are these statutes with restrictions?

 

[Al Capone]

Call the omv and ask them .