taboo to talk

[rhinob]

Just a matter of time...

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/Humvee_Info_Letter_526983_7.pdf

By that standard, all CUCV's are not compliance as well. Why are they on the road? My M1009 had an EPA exemption on the engine - which is *non-compliance*, no? While the CUCV is a civilian vehicle pressed into service with the military, and the body *may* meet the DOT standards, the engines don't. Things change. Doesn't really matter. Just an observation not an argument.

 

[jeffy777]

So how does your OPINION hold any more truth than you claim Ruth Johnsons . It is my understanding that there have been HWWMV's from the 99 sale that have titles pulled here in michigan. Assembled vehicles here in michigan still have to have a state certified vehicle inspector sign off on them and i doubt they will.

My opinion is less valid than Ruth Johnson's because not only do I not live in Michigan (love the state though... had my honeymoon on Mackinac Island). Ruth is an official and directs people beneath her and she is officiating interpretations of law. Right now her interpretation has weight and I have weight from eating too much ice cream.

 

[porkysplace]

I'm just surprised it wasn't Kalifornia to do it first !

Florida did before Michigan.

 

[MWMULES]

Now get down and give me 50, maggot! Hahaha. Go ahead delete my post again.

I deleted you post on the other thread because your post of "I drive it on the street." was off topic and had nothing to do with the thread topic of HMMWV Off Road Uses . There were a lot more after that so they have all been moved to this new thread. It should be ok till someone forgets http://www.steelsoldiers.com/showthr...-HMMWV-Titling

 

[Sintorion]

I deleted you post on the other thread because your post of "I drive it on the street." was off topic and had nothing to do with the thread topic of HMMWV Off Road Uses . There were a lot more after that so they have all been moved to this new thread. It should be ok till someone forgets http://www.steelsoldiers.com/showthr...-HMMWV-Titling

Totally agree with not allowing illegal discussion of ways to circumvent the issues. I assume that discussion around what needs to be done to correct the misunderstanding and laws is OK? The reality is that is the only way we can get both sides of the challenge working together to a solution. This isn't a lot different than what Fla did with allowing golf carts on public roads. The big exception is we don't have the big money lobbyist at our disposal.

 

[porkysplace]

Totally agree with not allowing illegal discussion of ways to circumvent the issues. I assume that discussion around what needs to be done to correct the misunderstanding and laws is OK? The reality is that is the only way we can get both sides of the challenge working together to a solution. This isn't a lot different than what Fla did with allowing golf carts on public roads. The big exception is we don't have the big money lobbyist at our disposal.

It's been done for the M939 series trucks in Georgia . It just takes someone to take the lead are you up to it and invest your time and money into it ?
The MVPA has lobbyist that would be the group to get behind you ,are you a member ?
If you read the thread on Georgia i think you will see it was a small group from Georgia that push this through without
a lot of help from the majority of the people that benifited from it. A lot of the support came from outside Georgia . Wisconsin had a similar issue before Georgia .
Georgia Title Law Changes: Need assistance from

Tracking the Bill
http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/...0132014/SB/392

 

[Videris]

I deleted you post on the other thread because your post of "I drive it on the street." was off topic and had nothing to do with the thread topic of HMMWV Off Road Uses . There were a lot more after that so they have all been moved to this new thread. It should be ok till someone forgets http://www.steelsoldiers.com/showthr...-HMMWV-Titling[/QUOTE

No explanation needed but since you brought it up my response was applicable to the original post. This is not.

Also no illegal activity Sintorion. My vehicle is completely legal and road worthy. So like I originally stated. I drive it on the street.

 

[Action]

I am no expert, but road worthy does not just mean lights, w/s, and a horn. My fiberglass dune buggy would have been a mess if hit in the side, but at least it had a collapsable steering column.

 

[Videris]

I am no expert, but road worthy does not just mean lights, w/s, and a horn. My fiberglass dune buggy would have been a mess if hit in the side, but at least it had a collapsable steering .

No action mine is road worthy cause I added a cigarette lighter. My bad I should have clarified what I meant by road worthy. You should get one for your vehicle so it's road worthy too.

 

[wheelspinner]

I am no expert, but road worthy does not just mean lights, w/s, and a horn. My fiberglass dune buggy would have been a mess if hit in the side, but at least it had a collapsable steering column.

A model T Ford wouldn't fare well either if hit, but no one is chasing them off the road. This is all just silly. If you want to do whatever it takes to be considered "roadworthy" then go do it. If not, don't. I will say that when the state inspector came to do a VIN inspection on one of mine he added "roadworthy" to his report after checking off that there was no EPA label and no FMVSS label. But he deemed it roadworthy. I'm not going to argue.

 

[Recovry4x4]

I don't think it's a CYA issue as assumed. If that were the case, 97% (estimated) of all rolling stock have something wrong with them like the headlight discussed. Certainly HMMWVs can't be the only vehicles that have bad headlights. So you didn't sign any documents that say it's for off road use only. Did you read the terms that you accepted that allowed you to bid? Whatever the case is with this, it's best figured out elsewhere rather than on this forum. Why you ask? History! History has showed us that eventually, every thread turns down the dark path of illegality and exposes willful disregard for law and the site owners wishes.

 

[Jericho]

Deep read ,cannot profess to understand either side of the ILLEGAL diatribe, DMV can exclude classes of vehicals from their juris prudence <BUT they cannot refuse travel over their roads by motor vehicals registered in OTHER states, if legally registered in the other state it is therefore LEGAL ,So Legally register your truck in a receptive state, and drive it where you will, I don't know of any state that precludes out of state registration, albeit pricey at times I do not subscribe to the argument that LEGALLY achieveing your goal , although some may see it as circumnavigation, is in its self illegal. Lets be for real , there's the law and then there's the law, use it to your ends , Its not illegal TWISTY ! So how many of these no reg states , state register their ex mil Hum vees that they use for Police, and municipal purposes

 

[ke5eua]

opcorn:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jericho]

, YES, but I learn something every time I log on, HAd a Hum vee as a Flight Chief Vehical , didn't know there were registration dificulties ,Cant say Iam interested in one YET, Wasn;
' t interested in 5 tons a year ago, got one , LOVE IT

 

[Mjvaden]

Interesting Michigan sites GP's and DLA's CYA clause. The M1123's that are sold are Not Restricted and the USMC considers them road worthy. the USMC is not a part of DLA and make their own decisions about the sale of their own surplus.They do not allow AMG or shady politicians to dictate what they do with their surplus. The truth is AMG got butt hurt about the military selling Hmmwvs for 1/10 of the cost of an H1 in 99. By Michigan's statement on this a 80's model chevy pick up should not be considered "road worthy" either.

 

[BLK HMMWV]

Wow got to say I'm surprised this has made it 4 pages so far.
2 years back it would have been squashed maybe times a changing.

 

[jeffy777]

Wow got to say I'm surprised this has made it 4 pages so far.
2 years back it would have been squashed maybe times a changing.

I think the issue before was finding methods to circumvent a states DMV's decision to decline a road license(title and plates). I made of list of several ways(some of these may be what is taboo, I don't know) I had planned to get a license and plates for my vehicle. I did not need any of the plans. I sent my wife to go get the title and plates and they handed them to her no questions asked. I had already talked to a Virginia State Police officer and he said if I had trouble he would sign off on it if it met VDOT inspection criteria. Though other people have said they have had different responses from the Virginia State police.

I was told of illegal scheme to by pass the process (I never considered them). But there are legal methods to get there. It may take time and some money.

Just do not break the law, I think is the problem and do not talk about schemes to circumvent the law.

This is a great board with a lot of very nice people on it. It would be ruined by people directing illegal schemes.

IMHO

 

[patracy]

Wow got to say I'm surprised this has made it 4 pages so far.
2 years back it would have been squashed maybe times a changing.

It's been moderated a few times already. Boarder-lining the locking none the less.

I'll lay it out here. It boils down into two issues for the site. One is the major support for keeping the lights on we get from GP in advertising. The other is the legality part of it. We simply don't want to assume any liability, direct or indirect, of breach of contract or illegal activities. That's the honest truth in both matters. It's not some power/ego trip. There's a whole host of discussions I'd enjoy here (HMMWV's, Firearms, NFA items, exc.), but without a doubt things seem to go off the deep end, so it puts us where we're at.

I'd like to make an observation/statement/relation on a similar action. (There's firearm talk ahead, but this isn't for the promotion of firearms, just showing a related instance) A couple years back a company and other companies designed a "brace" that can be used on pistols. These devices were marketed for those with disability to help with the sport of shooting. Well, the brace also allowed for a shooter to shoulder a pistol. Now does this sound too bad? No, not on the forefront. But it kinda hit a gray area of the law. A pistol, when a stock is installed and the weapon is shouldered (even if it's not a "stock") becomes a NFA item. (National Firearms Act) Meaning you need to have the firearm registered with the NFA registry and pay the $200 stamp. [A lengthy and troublesome process] The ATF was kind of in a bad place for this. The brace was intended as a improvement to those whom might be handicap. So they initially stated that there was no issue with the brace or use of it (in any fashion). Things would have been fine at this point right? Wrong. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry decided that they wanted their own opinion letter in their name. [I'd delve into the legality of things, but that's a discussion of it's own. Basically the BAFTE doesn't write "approval" letters. They only write letters that an item is not *currently* a NFA item or outright declares them a NFA item] What's wrong with that? Nothing again on the face of it. But the tech branch of the BATFE was inundated by these requests. Basically it boiled over to a point where they were overwhelmed. They ended up reversing their decision due to this. The rule then became that the brace was still completely legal as designed, but merely using it in any fashion where it was shouldered changed the classification of the item. In essence, so many people wanted a letter stating what they had already said that the department changed their position to simply stop the flood. "Poking the bear" if you will, caused everyone to get bitten.

Now with that said, I think a scenario like that could happen with HMMWVs. (We're seeing it in a state level at least) People seem to have the same mindset of "it must be my way" they don't think about the negative indirect impact that comes from it. I'd much rather see all the effort people make in the matter, being used in a fashion like we did with the GA laws for MVs. But perhaps on a national level.

That is purely my opinion in the matter, it does not reflect any other business/government/or even site's position.

 

[Jericho]

An interesting observation Patracy, I understand your logic, PA seems to have an active and influential (positive) MIL- VEH sector , they have very thoughtful and "accomadating " registration laws for collectors. And yes I would like to see some Of PA s accomadating regulation on military vehicle collectors bleed into my region. Perhaps a national effort is in need to bring some BROAD correlation to the spectrum. I may be wrong BUT ,here goes ,The M 561 was the first "proclaimed " NHSC compliant military vehicle , Every General purpose vehicle after that was either compliant or had a National Defense Interest Waiver. BUt having said that they all had a horn, lights , turn signals ect, Tactical or "special Purpose vehicles were exempt and met a different standard altogether, I retired in 94 , but bet it is still the same root directive , some stuff just doesn't change. I would wager that on its addition to the fleet the Hum VEE met the criteria. DOD went to considerable expense and trouble to add systems and safety items that wouldn't have been installed years before, and all thanks in part to the M 151 debacle and the mothers who demanded answers from Congress.

 

[tobyS]

Have lots of legal on road fun, no CDL or issues with title....buy my A3 deuce.