From: Darrell Ramsell (daram@comcast.net)
Date: Tue Jan 17 2006 - 23:42:18 PST
To the person in Kansas.
I have some suggestions that you may or may have not considered.
1. I would definitely get a lawyer. (I'm willing to make a donation for
this).
2. Try to find out who her boss is and see if he is more armor friendly
and get him to override her decision.
3. Find out how she got her position. If it is appointed or elected,
then you can campaign to get her removed.
4. Find a state representative that is armor friendly and ask for his
assistant to create a law allowing all historical military vehicles to be
registered, thus it would void her letter.
5. Share her e-mail address with everyone so they can voice their
complaint.
6. When pressing your case and you come across anyone who appears against
it. Ask them the following questions.
a. Tell me when was the last time a privately owned military vehicle was
used to commit a crime?
b. When was the last time a privately owned vehicle killed someone?
c. When was the last time a privately owned was involved in a auto
accident?
I'm sure, with an exception to the last one that they will not be able to
answer them. Why? Because people like us who own these type of vehicle are
very aware or the destructive capabilities. We know that any such mishap
would jeopardize our possessions of such vehicle. Because of this we take
great care to avoid them.
7. Last resort, register your vehicle out of state. I'm sure that many
on this list would be willing to help.
Darrell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Thomas" <davesgmc4u@yahoo.com>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:08 PM
Subject: [MV] Kansas denied ALL armored vehilce registraions, its time to do
something now
> Hi group. I am a new member and owner of a ferret. I
> have been
> fighting to get it licensesd here in the state of
> Kansas. below is a
> copy from an email composed by a fellow ferret owner
> that has been
> of great help to me in getting it registered. I
> suggest you all read
> it, as it concerns everyone with this mans decsion.
>
> I have scanned copies of the letter and "policy" in
> .pdf format that I can email you if you wish.
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
> 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!
>
>
>
>
>
> Dave Thomas
> fortitudine vincimus
> "Through endurance we conquer"
> 913-219-3179
> 1956 Daimler Ferret
> 02 BB 68
> MVPA 29221
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> ===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 - 21:39:33 PDT