From: Jeff Polidoro (willys@vgernet.net)
Date: Sun Sep 08 2002 - 06:19:59 PDT
...and some know how to spell and still others see a conspiracy behind
everything.
JP
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Shoop" <shoop19@brick.net>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>; "Jeff Polidoro"
<willys@vgernet.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: [MV] Who's Vehicle is it? (was: Big Brother IS watching for
sure!)
> Some people are so nieve.....
>
> jon
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Polidoro" <willys@vgernet.net>
> To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
> Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 11:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [MV] Who's Vehicle is it? (was: Big Brother IS watching for
> sure!)
>
>
> > The answer is pretty simple. Rights are not absloute. We each give up
> > rights in exchange for (hopefully) the common good. For example, we
give
> up
> > the right to drive on the left side of the road in exchange for the
peace
> of
> > mind of proceeding without worry in the right lane. We give up the
right
> to
> > go through red lights so we can go through green lights without
stopping.
> > It's pretty clear that this exchange of rights benefits us all and that
it
> > breaks down severely when someone insists on absolute rights.
> >
> > Even less obvious things like seatbelt laws follow the same logic.
Think
> > you have right to ride around unbelted because it's your life? Think
> again.
> > Your rights end at my front bumper. If you hit a bump and can't remain
> > seated and lose control of your vehicle if could guarantee you will kill
> > only yourself you may have a point but if you losing control makes you
hit
> > me, well that's a violation of my right to proceed umimpeded.
> >
> > As far as titling a rebuilt M151, fact is M151s were never DOT'ed,
meaning
> > that unlike MBs and GPWs which predate the requirement and HMMWVs which
> were
> > DOT'ed as Hummers, they were never evaluated by the DOT for
> roadworthiness.
> > It is against Federal law to drive a non-DOT compliant vehicle on public
> > roads. Same for non-DOT tires like agricultural tires. They have no
DOT
> > stamps so they are not for on-road use.
> >
> > No matter how you got your M151, beg, borrow, steal, or weld, unless you
> > have it certified by the DOT for crashworthiness-- front impact,
rollover,
> > side impact, short term emissions, long term emissions and a host of
other
> > tests it's not legal to drive on-road. The fact that folks have been
able
> > to register them is a stroke of luck. But if you get in the wrong guy's
> > face-- one who knows this-- you may end up with an M151 shaped planter
on
> > your front lawn.
> >
> > JP
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "jonathon" <jemery@execpc.com>
> > To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 11:48 PM
> > Subject: [MV] Who's Vehicle is it? (was: Big Brother IS watching for
> sure!)
> >
> >
> > > >I think the Bureaucrats have given some of us a break. If not do you
> know
> > > >what would become of Gama Goats and 151A2's and a few other vehicles
> that
> > > >were demilled as in cut in half or rendered unoperational or sold
with
> > paper
> > > >stating for off road use only.
> > > >Just because its repaired and registered for the highway by an agency
> not
> > in
> > > >the loop doesn't make it legal.
> > >
> > > I post this to the list in general, I am not being critical at all of
> your
> > > post Dave, the topic just got me thinking about this subject on a more
> > > general level.
> > >
> > >
> > > Since when does a seller of anything have any right, legally, to
control
> > the
> > > use of something they sell to someone else?
> > >
> > > I have a thought experiment here, perhaps if you believe that property
> > > rights are absolute you'd agree with me, perhaps others have differing
> or
> > > divergent viewpoints.
> > >
> > > The M151 is a good example as I want one but after collecting this
stuff
> > for
> > > almost 20 years I do not yet have one. Concider that I buy several
> > scrapped
> > > vehicles which were sold (auctioned) as scrap or residue. Now I spend
> much
> > > time and effort and perhaps money and I put one good vehicle back
> > together.
> > > Is it then an M151? If I go to the state to title and license it, is
it
> an
> > > M151 to them? I would have to say no on both question, it is a
> > > reconstructed vehicle and perhaps depending on how much work I had to
go
> > > thru it might even be concidered home built. But to a fellow MV
> collector,
> > > is it an M151? I'd say yes. I listen to people talk about titling
> > problems
> > > and I have to wonder what the big deal is with titles. Personally I
> think
> > > they are useless and should be abandonded all together. But that won't
> be
> > > happening soon. But what is the big deal about a title being correct
> for
> > > the vehicle as built? So what if it says a 1996 home built truck (my
> > > rewelded M151) or a 1963 Ford M151? So long as the serial number is
> > correct
> > > who cares? And as to serial numbers, I have talked to people where the
> > state
> > > refused to use the original number that was on the vehicle and they
> issued
> > a
> > > new VIN of the states choosing along with a small state issued tag and
> > > little rivets with a "W" on the head (W for Wisconsin) to attach it
> with.
> > > Seems to me if I had a choice between fighting them over a title that
> > > matched the vehicle as built and having a new VIN with a small id
plate
> I
> > > had to attach somewhere, I guess I'd just as soon go with a new small
> > plate
> > > and new VIN for the title. What difference is that going to make to
any
> > > person I would sell it to in the future?
> > >
> > > Going back to reconstructing an M151, lets take that a step further.
> What
> > if
> > > I was so inclinded to make a body from scratch that was
indistiguishable
> > > from an original Ford or AMG. Is that then an M151? Having seen the
work
> > of
> > > people such as John Geesink I would say that the right person can do
> this.
> > > As to this idea of the seller (government) controlling the use of what
> > they
> > > sell, at what point is the item you posess the same or not at all the
> same
> > > as the original item? Is the M151 that I got cut and then rewelded an
> > M151?
> > > What if I put a body together from many cut, crushed, or wrecked
bodies,
> > > should they be able to lay some claim on that? What then if I make a
> body
> > > from scratch??? Where is that line, if any?
> > >
> > > Seem to me this stuff is sold (auctioned) by the government either as
a
> > > whole operable vehicle, implying a 97 would come with it, or as scrap
> > metal.
> > > What I do with either is my business.
> > >
> > > So go another step. M60's, M1's etc. are not supposed to be in private
> > hands
> > > at all right? So what if I reconstruct one from scraped units? what if
I
> > > make one from scratch? Can the government then come in and confiscate
> it?
> > Is
> > > either really a tank (of thiers)? Again..... how and where do you make
> the
> > > distinction?
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry to ramble on so much, this topic is of some interest to me and
it
> > has
> > > come up before, just looking for any interesting opinions I guess.
> > >
> > > later,
> > >
> > > je
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> > > To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> > > To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to
> <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> > > To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
> > >
> >
> >
> > ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> > To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> > To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to
<mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> > To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 13:21:19 PDT