From: V SCHWARTZ (vsaws@optonline.net)
Date: Sat Feb 04 2006 - 05:42:48 PST
I hope Ronzo is sleeping in today cause I can see remarks like " Hey
Norton" coming your way No Matter how you read That Bill but I see ayou
are already suited up for flames anyway.Haha Vinny
----- Original Message -----
From: "GotaM35" <gotam35@joetrapp.com>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 7:26 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