From: mjnims (mjnims@cox.net)
Date: Sat Feb 04 2006 - 04:45:27 PST
I would think the easy way to get around the lighting and markings would be
as simple as magnetic covers for road use that would conceal the markings
until the shows. The trailer plugs can be utilized for lighting that would
conform to today's standards and simply removed at the show. I have a
Pinzgauer and use it as a daily driver. I have modified this truck to do
this safely and can still show it with the rest of the trucks and it only
takes a few minutes to make it show ready.
Sometimes it is easier to find ways around a fight rather than fight a
battle where you are likely to loose.
Mike president@swpinzgauer.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "GotaM35" <gotam35@joetrapp.com>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 5:26 AM
Subject: Re: [MV] Fw: KS Bill 2805 - anti mv bill in Kansas (link to bill
inside)
>
>
> > http://www.kslegislature.org/bills/2006/2805.pdf
> >
>
> First off, not a lawyer. Not a college graduate. I often peer into sewer
> mains for a living. Having said that I have a few thoughts.
>
> I may have missed something, but I did read the first few pages of this
> "bill" and it was not what I expected. Correct me if I am wrong but it
> looks like it only restricts vehicles that are restored or at least made
up
> to look like they did in the service. I assume that means original
lighting
> and unit markings and so forth. It appears to have the same restrictions
> that an antique tag here in SC has. Now granted SC is one of the most
> backwards state in the union when it comes to vehicle safety and standards
> and I may have missed something. It would seam if you changed the
> appearance and function of any "historic military vehicle" you could tag
it
> like a regular vehicle. I didn't see anything about armor. Did I
interpret
> this bill correctly?
>
> Now for the part that will get me flamed. I remember seeing a model T or
A
> many years ago and asked someone about the little light on the back. I
was
> concerned to find out it was only a little brake light. No turn signals
at
> all. I ask how that was legal. I was answered it was the factory
equipment
> at the time and therefore the law allowed for it. I thought, that's kind
of
> silly, to allow something that could contribute to an accident on the road
> with the rest of traffic like that.
>
> Now to the present. As I read this bill I read it with my "Joe Public"
> glassed on. Frankly I don't see you guys getting much support from
anybody
> outside this hobby with this one. As I read I though it sounded
reasonable.
> If you want to restore a vehicle to original condition the government will
> allow you to operate it on public streets from time to time. Of course if
> you did restore it and invest all that money you probably will trailer it
to
> events anyway. If you modify it for commercial use you don't need a gun
> ring or unit marking and you would want good lights and other safety
> equipment. If you want to make it a every day driver you could be
expected
> to do the same.
>
> Don't get me wrong I hate to see restrictions placed on us MV guys. I
hope
> you guys can get something done. I just thought I would throw another
view
> point out there for you. I am off to run sewer lines all day so have fun,
I
> won't.
>
> Joe Trapp
>
>
> ===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 - 21:40:35 PDT