From: Rick v100 (rickv100@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Jan 11 2006 - 08:01:14 PST
Glenn,
According to NJ statue.
"Motor vehicle" includes all vehicles propelled
otherwise than by muscular power, excepting such
vehicles as run only upon rails or tracks and
motorized bicycles.
That's it no other definitions.
39:3-6.21. Reciprocity
31. After July 1, 1995, if no agreement,
arrangement or declaration is in effect with respect
to another jurisdiction as authorized by this act, any
vehicle properly registered or licensed in such other
jurisdiction, and for which evidence of compliance is
supplied, shall receive, when operated in this State,
the same exemptions, benefits, and privileges granted
by such other jurisdiction to vehicles properly
registered in this State.
I would suspect that Kansas has the same regs.
Rick
--- G Shaw <milspectruck@verizon.net> wrote:
> Well, I would only say that it is not an ordinary
> motor vehicle, and
> probably will not be seen by a judge as one. In the
> first place it would
> have to meet the safety standards as of the year of
> manufacture, and we all
> would agree that it doesn't. It is a specialty
> vehicle to be sure, not your
> average DeSoto from 1956.
>
> Let him sue. I would feel very confident in going
> before the court
> defending the state on this. And buy the way this
> has nothing to do with
> interstate commerce at all. States still have the
> right to set their own
> unique standards for motor vehicle safety,
> emmissions, and design.
>
> I say sometimes it is better to fly low under the
> radar, that is all. Im
> not going to take up any more BW on this. But it
> will be interesting to see
> what happens as this plays out.
>
> Regards
> G.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick v100 [mailto:rickv100@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 10:14 AM
> To: G Shaw; Military Vehicles Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [MV] [Fwd: [inmvpa] i need your help,
> please]
>
>
> Glenn,
>
> One thing that you over look is that these vehicles
> have been registered in other states with no
> problems.
> Due to interstate commerce most states have to
> reciprocate and recognize registration from another
> state.
>
> Therefore according to your arguement a Ferret owner
> should never cross the Kansas line.
>
> By legal definition according to the state codes he
> owns a motor vehicle and unless specifically
> outlined
> by law not regulation he should be able to register
> his vehicle.
>
> Other then the armor plate how does his vehicle
> differ
> in safety issues then any commerical vehicle like a
> cement mixer or crane.
>
> I say sue the state and watch how fast he gets a
> registration.
>
> Rick
>
>
> --- G Shaw <milspectruck@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Hey guys, just a step back from the issue for a
> > second;
> >
> > Beware that this is fraud both with your
> > registration and your insurance and
> > has MANY pitfalls. You must have a verifiable
> > garaged address for the
> > insurance companies as well as the taxes. PO
> Boxes
> > are unacceptable except
> > as a business mailing address. I would be wary of
> > committing all kinds of
> > felonies and misdemeanors in a vain effort to get
> > around the primary issue.
> > This will do everyone a lot more harm than good.
> > Does the state of Kansas
> > have right to not certify a certain type of
> vehicle
> > for everyday road use??
> > This has already been decided many times in the
> > courts. It is a priviledge,
> > not a right to use a vehicle on the road as the
> > state may see fit. And the
> > state will execute their power and defend it in
> the
> > courts.
> >
> > If you look at the argument raised by the Ferret
> > owner pretty much every
> > clause is quite weak in its legal standing.
> > Although we may not like the
> > outcome, Kansas has many different solid
> arguments
> > that they may use in
> > court (and will) to support their refusal to issue
> > the priviledge of driving
> > this armored military vehicle on the public way.
> > Safety issues specific to
> > the vehicles odd seating, non standard steering
> > controls, limited visibility
> > and the safety of other travelers near it on the
> > highway , along with the
> > ever present public policy issues to do with
> Private
> > Armor in this day and
> > age of Terrorist threats. Does anyone else see
> the
> > day coming when Private
> > Armor will reside only in collections or be
> trucked
> > out to a parade or show
> > on a flatbed? I see it as a real possibility the
> > way things are going. You
> > will find that support for the owners of this
> Armor
> > being able to be owned
> > at all or driven on the highway, with the general
> > public, is about as great
> > as for anyone being able to walk around with a sub
> > machine gun at the mall.
> > We have to face up to what the reality of this is
> > today. People are afraid
> > out there.
> >
> > Does the MVPA "want" to make a stand on this issue
> > here and now? I don't
> > know. It may have as much downside as up to make
> a
> > big stink of this in the
> > Public Forum. If the case is lost it will become a
> > far more widespread
> > policy in many more states. Maybe discretion
> would
> > be the better part of
> > valor on this at this time. Perhaps this guy can
> > just move on to another
> > type of MV and have some fun instead of giving
> > himself a lot of trouble all
> > the way around. It is certain that the legal
> costs
> > where this is heading
> > are going to be FAR more than the Ferret cost in
> the
> > first place. I was not
> > going to post anything on this, but I think that
> > everyone should take a look
> > at the long view of the big picture without
> emotion
> > before flying off on
> > this. It will end up being argued by legal pros
> far
> > better than I soon
> > enough if it keeps moving up the docket as they
> say.
> > We shall see.
> >
> > Glenn
> > MTA
> > MVPA
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Military Vehicles Mailing List
> [mailto:mil-veh@mil-veh.org] On
> > Behalf Of MV
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:01 AM
> > To: Military Vehicles Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [MV] [Fwd: [inmvpa] i need your help,
> > please]
> >
> >
> > Does anyone have any experience in doing this?
> > Particulary between
> > Indiana and Michigan or Ohio or Illinois?
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > laptops wrote:
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Maguire"
> > <dmaguire@mchsi.com>
> > > To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List"
> > <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 11:14 PM
> > > Subject: [MV] [Fwd: [inmvpa] i need your help,
> > please]
> > >
> > > Here is what I would do.Go to Illinois and get a
> > pobx and get Illonois
> > > Plates and tell Kanas where to stick it
> > > Gordon
> > >
> > > ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> > > To unsubscribe, send e-mail to
> > <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> > > To reach a human, contact <ackyle@gmail.com>
> > > Visit the searchable archives at
> > http://www.mil-veh.org/archives/
> > >
> >
> > ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> > To unsubscribe, send e-mail to
> > <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> > To reach a human, contact <ackyle@gmail.com>
> > Visit the searchable archives at
> http://www.mil-veh.org/archives/
> >
> >
> > ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list==To
> unsubscribe, send
> > e-mail to <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> > To reach a human, contact <ackyle@gmail.com>
> > Visit the searchable archives at
> > http://www.mil-veh.org/archives/
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 18 2006 - 21:39:23 PDT