Wis DOT v. ex-military vehicles - AB-592

[vtwinpilot]

Myself I have delved into the political quagmire going back more than 20 years. I alway's come away more dis-heartened than encouraged with every new look into this political system. I lobbied in D.C. I know it's alot of work so credit to you guys for your cause and passion. Not having an exclusion for civilain conversion light duty vehicles will blindside a large amount of folks who purchased and are using them in "good faith". Undysworld did nothing wrong to be considered a "bonehead" he was only being fair and just in his testimony. Comparing bar stools to Blazer's just spotlight's this aggressive incompetance in the state's position. I wish I could dive into this farther but this is last on my list of major infringement right now. My Reps, have my position. I am leaning on getting rid of mine at a loss just to avoid further grief.

 

[stumps]

Sigh! Here we go again...

OK, I gotta push back here.

After spending the last two and half years working on this issue, day and night. I'd like to wish that each and everyone of you big talkers someday have the same oppertunity. Posting on the internet is easy. Pounding the halls of the state capitol and lobbying for a change in state law is not.

I already have. It is presumptuous of you to assume you are the only one that has ever fought city hall. It is not easy sticking to your guns and fighting for what you really need. Easy is compromising and settling for less than what you need just because it is expedient.

You'll find out just how the whole thing works. And we'll see if you're still talking so big then. Did I see you at the public hearings?

Living 1200 miles away, and being encouraged (in a most rude manner) by various WI members to butt out has made attendance unlikely by me...

...
It seems lost on people here, that we are not giving up anything. We are working to gain legal protection by changing state law. No easy task.

Really? Seems to me that you are giving up the rights and privileges that every other owner of historic motor vehicles enjoys.

The key is the fact that in Wisconsin there has been a LAW on the books for many years that can and is now being used to prevent military vehicles from being registered. We have been lucky for many years. The dumb ass people who build a motorized bar stool, drive it down the street - drunk and crash into a light post caused the DOT to start cracking down on all vehicles.

And you have had lawyers give their opinion that the law is being incorrectly interpreted, and a judge rule that the law is being incorrectly interpreted. That is what needs fixing. Right?

The whole reason that WI DOT is putting its support behind SB404 is they lost Undy's case, and feel that they need to make new law to restore the restrictions they believe are necessary. Your job is to not let them do it.

We have more work to do. Yes the Assembly bills AB592 and SB404 are not perfect and do have restriction. The legislature is giving use two years under the bills (if passed) to demonstrate that the vehicles are safe. We will have to show them and then lobby for less restriction in the future.

You lost me here. In the hearings, you folks talked of the large membership you represented, and the thousands of vehicles that you collectively owned, many of which were not even on the road.

WI DOT has the resources to take your names and gather the accident reports, and develop the statistics you are seeking. Get your senators to order them to do it. The data they need is readily available from your individual driving records, and your insurance companies. This isn't going to suddenly become easier after you have lost your unrestricted driving privileges. Also, in spite of what your DOT might think, Wisconsin drivers are not unique in this nation. Statistics from the other 49 states should also suffice. Talk to your insurance companies!

I was asked by the MVPA and MV Magazine and the MV clubs in WI to spearhead the effort. I'm committed to that cause.

For the members from Wisconsin, not supporting the current bills means do nothing and supports the DOT banning MV's. If the bills are not passed by March , they die and it will be two years until the committee will hear new legislation. In that time your registration could be canceled. So which side are you really on?

Cat Man

The side that recognizes that doing something even if it is wrong is not a lot of help.

In this particular case, it would probably be most useful for every MV owner in Wisconsin to lose his registration. That would serve as a wake up call that their rights are being trampled, and that the WI DOT has taken property value from them without compensation. That should result in a massive groundswell against WI DOT, and your legislators would suddenly find they had to do their jobs.

-Chuck

 

[vtwinpilot]

Look's like you snuffed this thread Stump's. Good debate should bring forth good results. Now I hear there are more issues with the DOT lawyer's brand choice. Does this guy drive a toyota? Is it not a "conflict of interest" to show that kind of bias under these circumstances? I would not recommend owning stock in that case. All I know is it rub's me the wrong way.........................

 

[Tanner]

'Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.' - Edmund Burke

'T'

 

[undysworld]

The executive session of the Senate Trans. Comm. was held today. Both milveh bills passed the Senate committee. Two amendments were made to the Erpenbach bill, one of which I had expected.

As I wrote earlier:
"SB-392 will be amended so as to effect Pinzgauers only. It is not supported by the WisDOT. Again, I will post a link to the actual finall document. It will change."

The bill is amended to effect only Pinzgauers. Here is a link to the 1st amendment to the Erpenbach bill (SB-392/AB-589):
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB392-SA1.pdf

The second amendment to Erpenbach's bill was made by Sen. Grothmann, and reportedly expands the bill to also include Jeeps, although I do not have the written details yet. Again, I will post the link when I know it.

(Vtwin, Stumps didn't snuff it. He pays us to let him get in the last word!! Even if it's only for a while.)

Paul

 

[stumps]

Pay??? I thought all I had to do was be my usual overbearing self, and people would abandon the thread in disgust.

-Chuck

 

[vtwinpilot]

Today I was informed on some aspect's of this issue. As far as the Blazer's/trucks they are just that K5 Chevy, crash tested, full safety features Chevy's that happened to be used by the Military, not true Military vehicle's like a Duece or Hummer. Ones sold by the Fed Gov that are road worthy to be titled are sold with the 97 form, ones that are scrap are sold as "Residue" not to be titled (no different than selling wrecked cars). It appears a bunch were sold as residue near milwaukee last fall and some folk's thought they could get by with passing them past the dmv, sound's like it did not fly. There are still clear titled Civilian conversion trucks for sale Dodge, Chevy's. I noticed RawHide boy's ranch had a nice one for sale last week, I don't think it was bid on at 4500+. Since there are probably thousands of these legally on the road in Wisconsin any undue restriction will almost certainly end up in court. The other issues, involving import's and large truck's have a whole different set of circumstance's so lumping every thing together does not make a realistic case. A jeep should not need any exemption as it would be non-sense to restrict it unless the goal is to restrict all vintage vehicles period. Flying this by the WLA owner's should prove interesting.

 

[undysworld]

VTwin,

Out of curiousity, where did you hear this info? I last spoke with Dale at Alpha Heaven, and she told me that they were not able to get their Blazers registered in Wis.

In the meeting w/ Sen. Holperin, DOT Atty. Nilsen clearly stated that he was told to oppose any registration of milvehs which exceded the "parade" uses in SB404/AB592. Nilsen blamed the policy on Chris Klien, DOT's exec. asst.

Don't take this wrong, I'm not accusing you of being wrong. (I'd like to think that you might be right.) I'd just like to find out who's making such a claim. There seems to be some support for registering the Blazers for normal operations, but to my knowledge, WisDOT is still refusing such registration.

Personally, I hope this matter does end up in court. This whole problem started when DOT began to re-interpret s.341.10(6), Wis. Stats. Perhaps that's where the court fight needs to go?? Without such an interpretation, no milvehs would be threatened in Wisconsin. (Any wealthy owners out there interested in contributing to a legal fund?)

 

[vtwinpilot]

I hope it's right also but am not totally convinced as I have said before this state has a knack for taking the worst fork in the road at every chance, so usually hoping for the best result's in a swift kick in the nutz. That said, going back last month my Assembly Rep's (Friske) office, view was that they were not being subject to restriction, this was a phone discussion with an assistant, and there may have been some confusion if I was refering to a Dodge or a Chevy. The hearing's and discussion here seem to show another side. I have not heard back from the Rep's office or Holperin at all. I am not going to quote exactly who I got this view from as I don't want to cross any wires in my translation. What I was told yesterday made sense to me, however the State has made everything but sense for years now. Anyway if you go to Alfa-heavens website they are still selling Clear WI titled Dodge, Chevy's Trucks and Blazers and I was told there is no issue with them. I wonder if the person you talked to was refering to the scrap ones sold at the auction? My fear it is not only a vintage vehicle witch hunt, first and foremost it's a "Diesel" vehicle witch hunt. If you wade into the quagmire of the DNR it's clear their is prejudice against them. Not only that but a couple older guy's that were proud of thier effort's to go green and make bio got thanked with tax bills after having print articles about their grease cars, I think one of them may have won out in court-not sure. It's my fear they view these as a direct threat to road tax income, and if they get them limited, older diesels, will be next..............Let's hope for the right outcome. The fact remains the State and Fed sold these vehicles and folks paid a premium at auction for ones designated road or title worthy with a 97 form, those that were sold as Residue sold for less. The thousands of people who bought them in "good faith" should have every expectation that the valuation of thier property shall not be stripped from them, especially in such a secretive and devious manner. The idea that the government has benefited from those "Road Worthy" premium's to have them stripped away is a real "Conflict of Interest" What's next---confiscation and ship them to China? Sound's like the lawyer is waffling a bit and blaming his superior's. As far as I'm concerned the one pushing this crap is the one responsible for every mob-like mandate shoved up our exit pipe for quite some time.

 

[huntinrig]

I know someone personally right now who is in a legal battle with WDOT over this right now. That is why I chose not to buy a m1009 at this time. I want to see what becomes of all this mess. I just want a good utility truck with no frills and these are perfect. They bought the truck in an auction someplace down south and have been fighting for several months over it. There is also a guy down the road who sells Duece and 1/2s. I should talk to him about it. I know of one logger and several farms that use old military vehicles, as well as a tow service in the next town that uses a military wrecker. All of these are in jeopardy from what I have read.

 

[vtwinpilot]

Did they have a 97 form and the state is refusing? If they bought it without it would mean it's residue and I understand the position on that. This is behind the back of most owners so anyone you know who has one need's to be informed. Things are being mandated on the state level that most folk's have no clue of. That is why I cannot abide by the idea of going along with a bill because you agree with a portion of it, the devils in the details. This state has been hi-jacked and we quietly let it happen. Wade into the DNR's list of new mandates, not good at all.

 

[undysworld]

Vtwin,
Here's an exerpt from his email to me:
I gave they the SF-97 form and a Florida vehicle title reassignment supplement

I agree with you, that vehicles bought w/o an SF97 are not intended to be licensed. His Blazer was sold with it, and therefore I think it was intended by the US govt. to be able to be licensed and operated on US hwys.

"This state has been hi-jacked and we quietly let it happen." Truly lamentable.


Huntin,
As SB-404 is written now, and assuming it passes, all commercial use of milvehs will be forbidden in Wisconsin. If you guys have problems with this, you should be getting involved. It's late in the game, but better late than never.

As I understand it, the collector group's official position is that SB-404 is better than fighting DOT and possibly getting all your registration/s cancelled. I've offered my opinions about that over the months. I'm satisfied that Jeff Rowsam (Catman) is considering a lot of factors in his/their opinion. I'm sure that he is trying to get favorable legislation for the members of the collector groups he represents, as best he can. We've talked at length.

But even Jeff readily admits that his focus has not been on commercial or unrestricted private operation of milvehs. My focus has been both the collector and the commercial/private uses of milvehs. As you're aware, Wisconsin has historically allowed both commercial and unrestricted private uses. My Pinz & Deuce are licensed as "Light Truck C" and "Farm" respectively.

If you, and other "users" of milvehs (like your neighbors with the logging trucks and tow trucks) want to band together to work on securing the right to register your milvehs like normal vehicles, then let's start speaking up. I'm happy to offer you whatever knowledge I can. But I'm not going to try to do it by myself.

These two bills can still be amended, supported, or defeated. Other bills can be proposed next year. IF people want to do this badly enough, it can be done. How hard are you/we willing to fight?

 

[USAFSS-ColdWarrior]

Undysworld:
THANKS (my "thank" button isn't appearing lately)

 

[vtwinpilot]

Well I have contacted my Rep's, and have been trying to get the word out. I wish there was an avenue for contacting all the owners who are clueless to this. I would'nt be suprised if they try to interfere with selling them also. They always use the excuse that they "have not heard much opposition" How can anyone oppose something that's kept so secretive it's despicable. I guess the dealers are not going to weigh in as any industry that speaks out in this state seem's to be subject to reprimand. I imagine they are just trying to get there $ while they can. It's criminal and I pray the carpetbagger end's up where he belong's playing cribbage with Blagdo & Madoff sometime soon.

 

[toddm]

ATTENTION ALL HMV OWNERS

Following a meeting with the chairman of the Wis Senate transportation committee, the committee last week changed the two senate bills regarding registration of military vehicles.

The Erpenbach bill SB 392 was amended to include ONLY PINZGAUER military trucks under collector rules. Sen. Glen Grothman added an amendment to include the M715 Jeep vehicle. THIS IS VERY BAD. IT STARTS DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE OF CREATING AN “APPROVED LIST”. That would be impossible with all the different military models. Very bad for the hobby. And is not what we want to see happen.

THIS CHANGES THE ERPENBACH BILL 100% FROM WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED IN THE HEARING!!!!!!

The bill, SB392 was passed out of the committee and will be sent to the Senate floor for debate and full vote very soon. WE recommend that your urge your club members to contact their senators and ask them to OPPOSE SB392 because it is incomplete and favors only two vehicle models and excludes hundreds of others.

The bill the HMV and MVPA helped craft and is not opposed by the DOT/DMV is SB404. It was also voted out of committee on a 6-0 vote “as is” without amendments and provides protection for “Any former military vehicle” (Wheeled). The committee chairman wants our bill SB404 to get to the senate floor quickly.

SB404 is not everything we wanted but darn close. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE SENATORS AND URGE THEM TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF SB404.

The same will happen in the assembly this week. AB592, the Zigmunt bill (same as SB404) will be voted out of committee as is on the 11th. Oppose the Pope Roberts/ Erpenbach bill.

Please get the word out quickly.

Thanks

Jeff

Jeff Rowsam
5432 South County Road P
Denmark, WI. USA 54208
Home # 920 863 8656
Cell # 920 562 5776
I was e-mailed this yesterday and have sent my state representatives a message. Thanks Todd

 

[Daddyraff]

I have to disagree. Both these bills need to be defeated.. 404 only protects the show trucks.. That is a very small but vocal group of vehicle owners. Parade only use is not acceptable.. 392 is now a convoluted protection for the Pinzgauer and jeep, but outlaws all the rest including my HMMWV..

Everyone in Wisconsin needs to talk to thier Senators & Reps and then contact the Governor. Both bills need to be defeated..

It is pathetic that the show truck guys are sacrificing the rest of us..


Remember: "No Man Left Behind"..
It's more than a bumper sticker.

 

[n9udl]

Hi All,

I am one of the Pinzgauer owners who has been persecuted by WisDOT since October of 2007.

I never wanted or asked for a Pinzgauer-specific bill.

SB-392 was introduced as a less restrictive alternative to SB-404.

At the last public hearing, indications were that the two bills might be merged into a single bill, less restrictive than SB-404.

However, in a subsequent closed meeting, participants were told in no uncertain terms:

* The bills will be handled separately.
* SB-404 will stand as-is.
* SB-392 will be amended to be Pinzgauer-specific, because the Pinzgauer owners were the only ones complaining about the restrictions in SB-404.

Now, I wasn't at that meeting, but I think Jeff Rowsam was, so perhaps he can confirm.

I do not oppose SB-392, because it allows me to continue to operate with few restrictions.

However, it is not what I would have preferred, which was un-restricted operation by all historic military vehicles as we have enjoyed it in the past.

The Pinzgauer owners have offered to support SB-404, even though we find the restrictions on operation unacceptable. We want to support our fellow HMV owners.

Why then am I seeing calls to oppose SB-392, which does not conflict with SB-404 in any way?

Personally, I think the best course of action is to withdraw both bills and hope for something better.

However, if SB-404 is not going to be withdrawn, then please support both bills.

Sincerely,

Tom Landmann
'74 Steyr-Puch Pinzgauer 710M

 

[vtwinpilot]

If they are claiming that Pinzgauer owners are the only ones complaining then they are either lying or ignoring their messages. Who exactly said "Jeep owners are the only ones complaining"? I included Jeep in my response along with every other US produced civilian conversion, sound's like it's being cherry picked. It would be enlightening to do an open records search on this with all legislators involved to shed some more light on who is pushing/ignoring what. It's starting to sound like they "are setting folk's up for confiscation" not just devaluation.

 

[saddamsnightmare]

February 9th, 2010.

I'm just weighing in with the comment"Steel Soldiers and other HMV Owners, notice what playing politics does for your property rights?" Neither bill above should be acceptable in any way to HMV or MV owners, as they amount to an illegal taking without due process or reimbursement. But since it is the Democratic Peoples Republic of Wisconsin, all the rest of us should fear the results, as they will spread like wildfire to other states. It is regrettable that the MVPA lacks having a pair for any practical use, but then if all you own are trailer and hanger queens, this is the bill for you.

I shall just sit back and watch while Nero fiddles, because the HMV/MV house in Madison is burning down.

Cheers,
Kyle F. McGrogan

 

[98hd]

I have to add that I as well, am disgusted. 404 is a pile of crap (no offense to anyone), but it's just too restrictive. Sure complete unrestricted use is probably a little too much to achieve, but it is what we should shoot for to try and get something acceptable. Ask for too much, and make it seem like your settling for something you can live with.

The other bill I thought was fine, until some moronic public official had to screw it all up and ammend it to cover Pinz's and M715's only.

I wish I had time to help with this right now, but I don't. So I will email my rep and tell him both are crap.

I think what is needed is an amendment to 394 (? can't remember bill #) to include all HMV's.

I am so glad I can register my HMV's elsewhere.