Privately owned armored military combat vehicles unfit for licensing in Kansas

[Al Nickolson]

Message from Ian Wallace,


Please read this information. The State of Kansas has declared no more armored vehicles may be licensed there. I have no idea how this will impact those already licensed – maybe they will have their licenses rescinded or not renewed. It is a very dangerous situation of other owners if this catches on in other states.



Ian Wallace

MVPA #20862



-----Original Message-----
From: Ferret-heaven@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Ferret-heaven@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ian Wallace
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 7:05 PM
To: Ferret-heaven@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Ferret-heaven] Kansas Licensing



The State of Kansas has provided me with a “official” copy of a policy declaring a Ferret, and everything else armored, unfit for licensing in Kansas. First the letter from Mr. Moser:



Dear Mr. Wallace,

Enclosed you will find a copy of the Director of Vehicles Declaration regarding the registration of privately owned armored military combat vehicles you requested. In view of the lawful declaration issued by the director, the Division of Vehicles considers this matter closed and no further correspondence will be responded to. Thank you for you interest and attention.

Sincerely, Mathew H. Moser, Manager, Titles and Registrations Bureau, Division of Vehicles

Now we have the policy. The emphasis is mine!



DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, DIVIS ION OF VEHICLES

POLICY DECLARATION 06-01

PRIVATELY OWNED SURPLUS ARMORED MILITARY COMBAT VEHICLES

Whereas armored military combat vehicles are not manufactured or intended for general transportation purposes or use by the public on public reads and includes: tanks, half-tracks, armored personnel carriers, self-propelled artillery and armored anti-tank or scout vehicles.

Whereas privately owned surplus armored military combat vehicles are not manufactured with proper safety equipment and pose a traffic hazard if operated on public roads.

Whereas privately owned surplus armored military combat vehicles are dedicated weapons of war with no private adaptable civilian purpose.

Whereas privately owned surplus armored military combat vehicles are a cause of concern for law enforcement and homeland security.

Whereas the Division of Vehicles is to exercise administrative functions and authority for the development of vehicle registration policy.

NOW THEREFORE pursuant to K.S.A. 8-127(a), and the authority vested in me as the Director of Vehicles, I declare it shall be the policy of the Division of Vehicles not to permit privately owned surplus armored military combat vehicles application for registration. Any operation of privately owned surplus military combat vehicles on public roads shall be in accordance with the provisions of K.S.A. 8-2002(a)(3) and under the regulation of local authorities permitting or prohibiting processions or assemblages on the highways.

I hereby direct the Titles and Registrations Bureau to make available copies of this policy to all county and state motor vehicle offices and personnel charged with the administration of motor vehicle registrations. This policy declaration shall be filed at the Titles and Registrations Bureau and is effective November 18, 2005.

Signed: Carmen Aldrett, Director of Motor Vehicles

Now some observations. First, Mr. Moser is getting tired of the pressure, and won’t respond any more. Little does he know that others will be in contact.

Second, look carefully at the policy. It is Policy #06-01. Perhaps the Division of Motor Vehicles thinks that we are all dummies, and that they can pull one over on us. I am willing to bet 00DC81 that this policy was entered into official Kansas records NO EARLIER than the date that my letter requesting the written policy arrived. That would be around the first few days of January. Their policy numbers relate to 1) the year of issuance, and 2) the sequential number of the policy. I am positive that this policy was not created back on November 18th as stated in both the policy and the hand written same date on the policy by the Director. THERE WAS NO POLICY IN 2005. THIS WAS THE FIRST POLICY CREATED IN 2006, #06-1

The language of the policy is also very disturbing. Note that “homeland security” is mentioned. Well, read it for yourself. This is a very, very dangerous policy if allowed to stand. There was no mention of the name of their legal advisor that I asked for. I guess we will have to find that out ourselves.

I will also post this to other military lists. Copies have been sent to Mr. McManus (Consumer Affairs Advocate) at Hagerty Insurance and the MVPA Board of Directors.

So now begins the fight!

Ian Wallace

[Stewart Loy]

Originally posted by Al Nickolson


Whereas privately owned surplus armored military combat vehicles are a cause of concern for law enforcement and homeland security.

Al,

Thanks for the update - as you well know, what they do down there, eventually drifts up here!

I was particularly disappointed in the use of the 'homeland security' bullcrap. You can tell they are on thin ice when they trot out a sort of rights and freedom crushing 'law' like that for anything from illegal wiretaps, racial profilling, and the obviously unsavoury HMV owners - wankers!

That being said - why the fake interest in 'safety'? Old military vehicles have no fewer seat belts or air bags that Granpops old Model A - but are those antiques banned? I know that I would feel much safer inside a Ferret than the old Ford!

Please keep us posted on what the MVPA gang is doing about this disturbing issue. These attempts at social re-engineering make we worry ...

Thanks.


Stewart

[alleramilitaria]

i was told that my 1944 morris and my 44 GPW were a danger to homland security too. due to the fact that anyone could pose as US army soldiers and carry out a terrioust act!!!!!!

this is something that if followed by other states and canada could end private ownership of all former MVs in north america.

and no i am not being silly. to plate my vehicles in europe i had to get a letter from the HQ of US army Europe provost marshal for my morris due to the fact that it was cammo. there is a german regulation that says that no vehicle can have a cammo paint sceem and be road leagle. but its not often followed by the germans.

[sapper740]

Great! Another politician passing politically expedient, feel-good legislation. Let's hope groups like the Centre to prevent Handgun Violence, Anti-gun Coalition of America, and others of their ilk don't jump on board this bandwagon!
Just a couple quick questions... When was the last time a privately owned AFV was used in a crime? What's that? Never!?! And when was the last time a privately owned AFV was involved in a wreck? What's that? Never!?! Then why prohibit licensing them?

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

Originally posted by sapper740
Just a couple quick questions... When was the last time a privately owned AFV was used in a crime? What's that? Never!?! And when was the last time a privately owned AFV was involved in a wreck? What's that? Never!?! Then why prohibit licensing them?

Silly man.... it's for the children, dontcha know!

[Snowtractor]

Originally posted by alleramilitaria
i was told that my 1944 morris and my 44 GPW were a danger to homland security too. due to the fact that anyone could pose as US army soldiers and carry out a terrioust act!!!!!!
.

might as well take bone stock Ford GM and Dogde pickups off the road too, as they are bought and painted green and used as is in the continental US and Canada. ALso bone stock International 3-5 tons and KW tractors etc etc etc... While we are at it we should remove any car that can be made up like a police car...just to be safe
Sean

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Jeeze, what will they go after next? That old army jacket in my closest is way too big a risk. WW2 vehicles being used by terrorists pretending to be real army? I'd think a hardhat and an orange vest would be better for that. Army trucks weren't made for the road? Huh?? Roads are only for transportation and there's no place for heritage vehicles unless they are civilian heritage vehicles??? How dare they????

Dam them and their "I don't like it, so you can't have it" attitude. What's worse is that so much time and effort is spent going after non-issues, but real threats are left untouched.

What's the odds of something like this NOT catching on?

[herr-pear]

What can I do to help? I don't live in Kansas; but stupidity like this really spreads fast if we don't nip it in the bud.


Herr-Pear
AKA
Roger in Vegas

[Larry Hayward]

While they are about it in Kansas, they may as well scrap all the MV's in Museums as well, lest any terrorist should break in during the night, restore a vehicle to working order then break out with it and go and pretend to be the Military!

Perhaps every armour protected HUMVEE that come out of its Military base should have a Police escort in case it gets hi-jacked by a fake soldier and perhaps the escort should have an Army escort in case they are stopped by a fake policeman.

I thought the USA was the land of the free. A place where your rights to enjoy yourself, without harming anyone else, were enshrined in you Constitution?

This law in Kansas is in a similar style to the way the UK Labour Government wanted to stop gun crime last year by banning replica & deactivated guns - but they soon found out that it was the law abiding citizens that were using them on their restored MVs or for Civil War re-enactment etc!

Don't let politicians prevent you, the lawful citizens of your country, from owning MV's on the false belief that it is a threat to your 'Homeland Security' otherwise you have let the perpetrators of 911 win another victory. Your politicians should in fact do the opposite - they should relax as many laws as they can (while maintaining the security checks where it matters) so that the American people can say "Our way of life is best and terrorism will never win or get us down"

Lets hope such stupid laws don't cross the Atlantic!

[tankdriver]

Latest update.....

Ok , I recieved a call from Rep J Edmonds. He said "We are making progress" The meeting incl. himself , Rep Hayzlett, Ks Highway Patrol Col. Ikehorn (spelling ?)DMV Carmen Aldrett and others. The meeting ended with the DMV agreeing to go back to the drawing board. Word to the wise here turrets are a issue still. It seems they agreed that they were to broad in their policy and would re-write it. I myself am not sure any re-writes will be acceptable but Rep Edmonds is hopeful that we will prevail.
I am currently pursuing contacts at the federal level to ascertain whether this is a genuine homeland security issue. If so I would think MV owners in other states would be experiencing the same communist treatment. So my assumption is that "homeland security" is being used as a blanket excuse for their conduct in this state only. Wheels turn slowly in politics but we have achieved a good coalition of representatives and I for one will be watching the DMV closely.
I have also began assembling names of Sheriffs who are friendly to this issue. I will attempt to have them express their belief that these vehicles pose no homeland threat in writing and relate this to Highway patrol officials.
Have made good contacts with VFW State HQ and have the FULL support of that fine organization.
Will keep you all posted as new events transpire.
Kevin Lockwood

[tankdriver]

Worse than that.....

State of Illinois

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that it is unlawful for any person to purchase, possess, use, sell, give away, or otherwise transfer, or to engage in the business of selling, or to exhibit for sale, any replica rocket propelled grenade launcher, bazooka, artillery piece, grenade, mine, bomb, or items similar to weapons designed and manufactured for military purposes or replicas of those items. Provides that a violation is a Class A misdemeanor.


link to law

[Snowtractor]

Kevin,
maybe you should refer the governor to the guy in Colorado who tacked up a couple sheets of steel around a Catepillar then proceeded to knock down any building he liked, a few years ago. The authorities could not stop him so let him finish. Even a wheel dozer with the new no air tires would not be stopped with a couple of sheets of steel around the cab. I think a 100,000lb loader running around would be more of a threat, with its bucket, then a dingo with a turret will ever be.
Sean

Did you read it only said "PUBLIC ROADS, Nothing saying you can't drive it on Privite land, if thiers No sig on this new law in Kansas then it's Bogus, beside I only know of 2 things in Kansas anyways , Dorethy and Toto,



Cheers , Don't let it bother you mate




BIG MIKE

[tankdriver]

Originally posted by BIG MIKE
Did you read it only said "PUBLIC ROADS, Nothing saying you

Cheers , Don't let it bother you mate


BIG MIKE

I live in Tennessee, and neither of these laws affect me YET... But in the US once one state does it others follow. Look at gunmaker law suits, look at the Assualt rifle ban, gay marrige, just the way it goes. If we do not stop it before it starts, it will be every where.

Mark my words.... ... :dh:

[servicepub (RIP)]

When dealing with bureaucrats remember that they have to appear to come away with something. Suggest that any legislation take into account any 'real' fears that they may have. Suggest compromises. Digging in and refusing to yield is not dialogue and you will be ignored if you take this route. Suggest that all vehicles be eligible for standard 'on-road' licensing but that tracked, turreted vehicles in excess of 50 tons be subject to 'special occasion' licensing.
This kind of approach shows that you are flexible. At the same time, who gets a license plate for a tank so that they can run down to the corner store for a pack of smokes? Most legislators would be happy with something like this so that they can show the public that they are effective yet still provide some leeway for the collector's community.
Remember, when you are negotiating you are giving them an opportunity to learn about you and your activities. This makes it a lot tougher to unilaterally act against you.

[tankdriver]

Lastest update.... This is not me. copied from mailing list.

Ok , I recieved a call from Rep J Edmonds. He said "We are making progress" The meeting incl. himself , Rep Hayzlett, Ks Highway Patrol Col. Ikehorn (spelling ?)DMV Carmen Aldrett and others. The meeting ended with the DMV agreeing to go back to the drawing board. Word to the wise here turrets are a issue still. It seems they agreed that they were to broad in their policy and would re-write it. I myself am not sure any re-writes will be acceptable but Rep Edmonds is hopeful that we will prevail.
I am currently pursuing contacts at the federal level to ascertain whether this is a genuine homeland security issue. If so I would think MV owners in other states would be experiencing the same communist treatment. So my assumption is that "homeland security" is being used as a blanket excuse for their conduct in this state only. Wheels turn slowly in politics but we have achieved a good coalition of representatives and I for one will be watching the DMV closely.
I have also began assembling names of Sheriffs who are friendly to this issue. I will attempt to have them express their belief that these vehicles pose no homeland threat in writing and relate this to Highway patrol officials.
Have made good contacts with VFW State HQ and have the FULL support of that fine organization.
Will keep you all posted as new events transpire.
Kevin Lockwood

[tankdriver]

Two updates first is from John Snapp, The second is from Kevin Lockwood.


I am REALLY glad to see the MVPA being an active participant in this. It is good they are taking a interest in the armor guys. A lot of times they do things behind the scenes and no one ever knows they did anything.

==============================================

The Kansas armor issue.....

I spoke with several individuals in the Ks. Legislature Saturday in Topeka.(It was the Kansas Day Celebration which is a big celebration for the Ks. Republican Party and I've been to it going for years.) Anyway, I talked with the Chair of the Kansas House Transportation Cmte, Gary Hayzlett. He indicated that he felt that they had this matter under control at this point although it wasn't a done deal. Rep. Hayzlett was thinking it might require legislation if the Div. of Vehicles doesn't drop the “policy.”

He and Rep. Edmonds had a meeting last week with functionaries from the the Ks. Div. of Vehicles and a representative of the Kansas Highway Patrol. It is important to emphasize, Reps. Hayzlett and Edmonds are very much on our side in this matter.

He (Rep. Hayzlett) indicated that all reasons for the “policy” were outlined by KHP/Div. Vehicles at the meeting and he and Edmonds refuted all of them (simply because there aren’t any legitimate reasons). I pointed out that in Kansas any vehicle over 35 years old is eligible for an antique tag and that most military vehicles fit into that category (aside from vehicles with lugs contacting the street surface (i.e. tracks with grousers and tractors with steel lugged wheels), an obvious restriction so as to not damage the street surface). The Kansas licensing and registration statutes do not say anything about armor or turrets. I pointed out that Div. of Vehicles could likely be forced to register and tag such a vehicle if the applicant took them to court. He said he was hopeful that that would not be necessary.

I pointed out to Rep. Hayzlett that:
1) These armored vehicles are basically time consuming and very expensive “toys” (expensive to purchase, restore and maintain);
2) To properly operate them as they were designed requires a trained crew of 2-5 depending on model;
3) Much more danger to the general populace is present at many unoccupied smaller airports in the state (easy to steal a plane, fly off and perform some act of evil);
4) They are not used as “grocery getters” and family transport (but are often enjoyed by the entire family and become a source of family time restoring and maintaining them) but are taken on the occasional weekend warm-up drives or to a parade or other display/demonstration/reinenactrment purpose;
5) There is NO record of misuse in the U.S. by legitimate owners;
6) There is no such restriction on a 200 mph Corvette in Kansas; and
7) This was a solution looking for a problem.

Rep. Hayzlett said the Div. Vehicles/KHP were talking "homeland security" as their concern and he said that dog didn't hunt with him. He mentioned that the issue came up (according to the Div. Vehicles) because of some forged or otherwise illegal title back east (Ohio, Indiana Illinois, etc.) (east of Kansas at least.), which title probelm has NOTHING to do with homeland security. (However, along those lines, I've checked with a contact in the Fed. Gov. and that person made a preliminary check about this "homeland security" issue and found nothing at the federal level. That person is going to do a further (discrete) check for me.) Div. Vehicles/KHP also mentioned turrets as a concern. Hayzlett and Edmonds refuted that issue also.

Div. Vehicles & KHP apparently then mentioned as a compromise a "traveling radius" restriction. Such a “compromise” restriction is unacceptable as it is the proverbial “foot in the door” and would allow for a later modification by Div. Vehicles without legislative approval.

Like most things government, this matter will take time to repair but the key players are in place to fix this abortion and I believe we’ll get it done.

More later.

Jon

(As a side note, this whole issue reminds me of the so called federal “assault weapons” ban: If you don’t like it because of the way it looks or you don’t see the need for it, vilify it in your own mind and just ban it.)


==============================================

As Jon S. spells out previously we are in a hell of a fight but have a ever increasing number of legislator's falling in with us. I spoke to J Edmonds today and was told that he and G Hayzlett had presented the DMV with a deadline of tomorrow to introduce their revised policy to the house transportation committee. I will post a update as soon as news reaches me.
I have been actively building a warchest to refute the "homeland security" ploy. Federal level individuals can find no evidence of a policy at the top in regards to this matter. So it is obviously a excuse to implement this farce. I have obtained written letters of support from a KDOT supervisor, four Sheriffs who are meeting with KHP personnel in Topeka tomorrow and Thursday. I am as Jon says unwilling to give them a foothold on this subject so we will hope for a new clasification within the states antique tag rules which avoids the confusing look at the county office when the assistant cannot find a field on the screen to choose "former military vehicle". They can at present only select car or truck.
Also let me say here that Lee Holland from the MVPA has called me on a regular basis asking to be kept abreast of the situation. The MVPA HQ in KC has sent a informative package as well as a letter of introduction to the two primary legislators leading our efforts (Edmonds and Hayzlett). I cannot see at this point that the HQ can do a lot more than is being done now. If at some point the DMV comes out swinging and will not in good faith work to resolve this. Than I will be urgently calling and expecting to see the MVPA cavalry ride over the hill to our rescue.
Kevin Lockwood

[Phil Waterman]

If you thought the last bit about Kansas restricting registration of armored military vehicles was something get a load of this one.

HB 2805, introduced in the Kansas State Legislature would drastically alter the rights of military vehicle owners. The bill would require that a military vehicle registered in Kansas be designed for use in the United States military, and that it not be driven except under a very narrow set of circumstances, including limiting usage to daylight hours.

Yes, I checked and they are for real with a bill currently under review that would provide extreme limits to driving military vehicle. If you would like to read it for your self here is the link. http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-bills/index.do and then type in 2805.

Now the purpose of this legislation is obscure, I may just be a way of getting a lower registration fee, the implications of this type of limits on the Historical Antique Military Vehicle hobby could be significant. What other legislative body might get bright ideas?

[Gunner]

It strikes me that someone went to a lot of effort to update the original bill regarding the registration of special interest and antiques and ended up complicating the matter even more.

Had they simply amended the definition of special interest vehicles to include historic military... regardless of size, etc, the reminder of the document could have been left alone.

The biggest worry is the exclusion of machines not made for the US military... narrows the field a bit for collectors of CMP, German, French, UK, etc, etc.

2 cents!

Mike

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Reading the definition in Bill 2805, while anything made for the US military forces is an "historic military vehicle", anything that was not, is not. A CMP, despite looking for all the world like a military vehicle, would, in Kansa, be a 'special interest vehicle". I'm sure that's not what the drafters meant to say (if an American MV is dangereous and needs to be regulated, than all MV's should be equally dangerous and regulated). Is it possible the drafters of this legislation are so...slow...that they think the USA is the only user of MV's?

[sapper740]

Originally posted by Bruce Parker
Reading the definition in Bill 2805, while anything made for the US military forces is an "historic military vehicle", anything that was not, is not. A CMP, despite looking for all the world like a military vehicle, would, in Kansa, be a 'special interest vehicle". I'm sure that's not what the drafters meant to say (if an American MV is dangereous and needs to be regulated, than all MV's should be equally dangerous and regulated). Is it possible the drafters of this legislation are so...slow...that they think the USA is the only user of MV's?

You're quite right Bruce. I just read KS Bill 2805 and my CMP would not be classified as a Historic Military Vehicle but as a Special Interest Vehicle. While the licencing requirements would be the same, I and my CMP wouldn't have any of the prohibitions of a vehicle manufactured for the U.S. Military. I could drive 24 and 7, anywhere and any time I wanted. If they enact this clumsy and silly legislation, I'm going to trailer my CMP to Kansas and drive circles around their State legislature!



CHIMO!

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Come to think of it, the definition of "historic military vehicle" in this Kansas 2805 Bill is full of holes. The vehicle must be manufactured for use in the US military, but also must maintain it's original design AND markings. All this would put it under the restrictions of the Bill for where and when it could be driven. This is a condition of the permit that would be given by the state.

Where in this Bill does it in any way restrict someone from owning and licensing any MV from the US or anywhere that has been altered in some way (better lights, wrong markings, non-US used)? I'm not so sure this is an attack on MV's so much as a way of limiting all historic, antique, and 'street rods' on roads in their original condition. I expect that if you didn't want to register your MV as an "historic military vehicle" you could get a regular permit for it? If you had a non-American vehicle in 100% accurate condition and markings, would it be banned, or simply not be eligible for a special antique permit?

(what, only American vehicles are worthy of being historic? You imperialist Americans! And how would the guy in the licensing office know original condition and markings anyway?)

If this Bill, or any other, said that all MV's were banned from the road unless permitted by this Bill, I'd be more worried.

If this Bill is being used to deny permits except for those that fit the "historic military vehicle" definition, there is nothing in it that supports that.

I'm thinking the reason for this Bill is to get odd, and strange vehicles off the road, and for the first time, MV's made the radar scope. I dare say 'street rod' owners are more likely to make trouble for the motoring public than MV owners.

Correct me if I'm wrong?

[Phil Waterman]

You, guys are right it is one of the worst pieces of legislation I’ve seen but nobody said they were bright.

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

All this talk of bad legislation made me take a look at what the Ontario Provincial legislature has pending. There's a few wingers like the "Stronger City of Toronto for a Stronger Ontario Act", but the one to regulate free falling gave me the giggles. Some excerpts are below, including the definition of free falling (complete with proscribed heights), the right for 'parachute police' to enter your car or premises in search of illegal parachutes, the inevitable permit (for a fee of course) and fines up to $500,000.

In Ontario, a stunt-person falling more than 7 metres (23 feet) is committing an offence.

In Ontario, a high diver falling more that 10 metres (33 feet) without a permit and a parachute is a law breaker.

I wish I was making this up.


Bill 29 2005

Permit required

2. (1) Subject to subsection (2), no person shall participate in freefalling unless the person holds a permit and uses a parachute that meets the prescribed requirements.
Exceptions
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who engages in freefalling if,
(a) the freefalling is from a height of not more than seven metres from the surface of the ground or whatever other distance the regulations prescribe;
(b) the freefalling is from a height of not more than 10 metres from the surface of water or whatever other distance the regulations prescribe, if the depth of the water is at least equal to the height of the freefall; or
(c) the freefalling takes place in other circumstances that are prescribed.

Identification card

13. A permittee shall, when using or preparing to use a parachute while freefalling, carry the identification card that the Registrar has issued to the permittee under this Act and, upon request, shall produce it for investigation.

Powers of investigator

(2) In an investigation under this section, an investigator may,
(a) stop, detain, enter and inspect a conveyance if the investigator has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is using it to assist in freefalling or to store a parachute used in freefalling;
(b) enter and inspect any premises in accordance with this section if the investigator has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is using it to assist in freefalling or to store a parachute used in freefalling;

Penalty

(3) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction,
(a) to a fine of not more than $50,000, if the person is an individual; and
(b) to a fine of not more than $500,000, if the person is not an individual.