I guess this is one of the highlighted points of this discussion. Action, it would seem you believe the "OFF ROAD ONLY" stamp on the SF-97 and other similar statements on the purchase documents apply to the "LIFE of the Item" .............. While the other side of the discussion is that those terms are the condition of the item at the time of purchase and is in place to remove any liability of the sellers (Ironplanet/DOD) from actions of the new owners. It also makes it perfectly clear to the new owner that at the time of purchase the sellers are making no statements in regards to the vehicles being compliant with use on public roads. The "Off Road Only" stamp makes it perfectly clear to the new owner that if they want to drive it on the road, it is up to the new owner to contact their state and do whatever (if possible) to get them to a condition that would be approved by their state for on road use. A PERSONAL OPINION of MINE, all vehicle sold on a SF-97, that is something that has never been titled should have to go through a DOT safety inspection (appropriate for the year that they were built or inline with the states laws) before titling. Dependent on the state exemptions do exist on MV and classic/antique vehicles as long as you are compliant with state laws I believe it is ok. I think a DOT inspection is not a bad thing when first purchasing and titling a MV with a SF-97 if it has an "off road only" stamp on the SF-97 or not. Just my opinion.
This is certainly the crux of the matter.
My opinion, supported by documentation with opinion straight from the NHTSA (which essentially carries the weight of law, like the ATF with their firearms opinion letters), shows that the whole off road only mandate is completely hollow from the get-go. From the
previously linked:
If we conclude that a vehicle is manufactured primarily for on road use, it is a "motor vehicle," notwithstanding the fact that it may be sold "on the basis they would only be used for off road purposes." We see no way in which a seller can bind a purchaser to such use, and, certainly, such a restriction would not be binding on subsequent owners of the vehicle.
First, we've already established earlier in this thread, that DLA sells the trucks to IP/GP who in turn sells them to us. This is evidenced by the purchase documentation you receive from IP/GP. If you've bought a truck direct from auction, you're already the third owner of the truck.
Second, NHTSA has established the HMMWV as a "motor vehicle" way back in
1987 and
1988, because by AMG's own admittance, the HMMWV was designed to operate 60% on primary and secondary roadways.
Of course, all of this ignoring that the actual stamping
may be a violation in altering the SF97 form in the first place as was mentioned earlier in this thread.
And even if we accept the premise that the stamping was valid/applicable, per the State of Ohio, this is the standard I must meet to be titled for on road use (from the Ohio BMV 3803 - Affidavit Change Of Motor Vehicle Title):
Doesn't say anything about FMVSS or EPA compliance. All I needed to add to comply with Ohio law was #12.
And before the naysayers jump in to point out #13, that is really only to make sure your vehicle isn't constructed of mud, masonry, sticks, or animal hide and will leave pieces of itself everywhere...
And furthermore, even if we accept the premise that you're violating the agreement in some manner by titling the truck for on road use, that is a civil/contract law matter and irrelevant to the matter at hand of the legality of registration.
An interesting point of order. One poster
posted this much earlier today in another thread:
I called Gov Planet back and they said yes it would be. (Stamped off road, clarification mine) I said in the item description it does not say for off road use only, they said that is the way the title comes and its up to your local state to change the title over to an on road title.
So according to this poster, GP is acknowledging that it is state's prerogative to change the title. That would seemingly put to bed the theory that the agreement is eternally binding in IP's/GP's own view if that's what they're disclosing to customers.
I really believe it's a safety issue. For years the demil manuals (several versions) have stated the HMMWV's were demilled due to safety issues. It was right next to the M151 and Gamma Goat notes. Just because they were deemed "safe" for trained military drivers, doesn't mean the Govt believes they should be driven by Joe public. I am very sure AM General had a lot to do with this.
But what exactly is the "safety issue"? This isn't documented anywhere except AMG's say so. A say so that is non-specific. And, on top of that,
where is all of AMG's benevolent concern for safety in regards to the sales of their 2.5 and 5 ton trucks they've manufactured? This leads me to believe the genesis of the issue is exactly as 86m1028 said, AMG didn't like competition with the H1.
No one can show what differences make the M1123s or '99 USMC M998s (ignoring all other MVs for the sake of this discussion) which were never restricted (except by the State of Michigan, which may be in conflict with Federal law) inherently more safe than these current M998s, M998A1, M1038s, and M1038A1s.
Here is some reading from an old DRMS manual. I couldn't find the older version which basically said that HMMWV's could be sold if they were upgraded to meet FMSS standards. So basically even though legally this shouldn't be an issue, safety standards are what's been listed as the reason for no sales for years.
(SNIPPED)
That's not really applicable to this situation because that is regarding disposal to another government agency or subdivision.
And even if that is taken at face value with these sales to the public, there's apparently a conflict between DLA/DRMS who thinks these trucks need to meet FMVSS and, NHTSA who says they and all military vehicles do not on disposal to the public. Color me surprised! The government's left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing?
Personally, I give the upper hand to the NHTSA, who governs safety standards on public roads. Plus, DLA they themselves state at the end, "DLA Disposition Services does not have the expertise to validate whether restored HMMWVs meet federal safety standards, " which would seem to abdicate that authority to the NHTSA.