Two updates first is from John Snapp, The second is from Kevin Lockwood.
I am REALLY glad to see the MVPA being an active participant in this. It is good they are taking a interest in the armor guys. A lot of times they do things behind the scenes and no one ever knows they did anything.
==============================================
The Kansas armor issue.....
I spoke with several individuals in the Ks. Legislature Saturday in Topeka.(It was the Kansas Day Celebration which is a big celebration for the Ks. Republican Party and I've been to it going for years.) Anyway, I talked with the Chair of the Kansas House Transportation Cmte, Gary Hayzlett. He indicated that he felt that they had this matter under control at this point although it wasn't a done deal. Rep. Hayzlett was thinking it might require legislation if the Div. of Vehicles doesn't drop the “policy.”
He and Rep. Edmonds had a meeting last week with functionaries from the the Ks. Div. of Vehicles and a representative of the Kansas Highway Patrol. It is important to emphasize, Reps. Hayzlett and Edmonds are very much on our side in this matter.
He (Rep. Hayzlett) indicated that all reasons for the “policy” were outlined by KHP/Div. Vehicles at the meeting and he and Edmonds refuted all of them (simply because there aren’t any legitimate reasons). I pointed out that in Kansas any vehicle over 35 years old is eligible for an antique tag and that most military vehicles fit into that category (aside from vehicles with lugs contacting the street surface (i.e. tracks with grousers and tractors with steel lugged wheels), an obvious restriction so as to not damage the street surface). The Kansas licensing and registration statutes do not say anything about armor or turrets. I pointed out that Div. of Vehicles could likely be forced to register and tag such a vehicle if the applicant took them to court. He said he was hopeful that that would not be necessary.
I pointed out to Rep. Hayzlett that:
1) These armored vehicles are basically time consuming and very expensive “toys” (expensive to purchase, restore and maintain);
2) To properly operate them as they were designed requires a trained crew of 2-5 depending on model;
3) Much more danger to the general populace is present at many unoccupied smaller airports in the state (easy to steal a plane, fly off and perform some act of evil);
4) They are not used as “grocery getters” and family transport (but are often enjoyed by the entire family and become a source of family time restoring and maintaining them) but are taken on the occasional weekend warm-up drives or to a parade or other display/demonstration/reinenactrment purpose;
5) There is NO record of misuse in the U.S. by legitimate owners;
6) There is no such restriction on a 200 mph Corvette in Kansas; and
7) This was a solution looking for a problem.
Rep. Hayzlett said the Div. Vehicles/KHP were talking "homeland security" as their concern and he said that dog didn't hunt with him. He mentioned that the issue came up (according to the Div. Vehicles) because of some forged or otherwise illegal title back east (Ohio, Indiana Illinois, etc.) (east of Kansas at least.), which title probelm has NOTHING to do with homeland security. (However, along those lines, I've checked with a contact in the Fed. Gov. and that person made a preliminary check about this "homeland security" issue and found nothing at the federal level. That person is going to do a further (discrete) check for me.) Div. Vehicles/KHP also mentioned turrets as a concern. Hayzlett and Edmonds refuted that issue also.
Div. Vehicles & KHP apparently then mentioned as a compromise a "traveling radius" restriction. Such a “compromise” restriction is unacceptable as it is the proverbial “foot in the door” and would allow for a later modification by Div. Vehicles without legislative approval.
Like most things government, this matter will take time to repair but the key players are in place to fix this abortion and I believe we’ll get it done.
More later.
Jon
(As a side note, this whole issue reminds me of the so called federal “assault weapons” ban: If you don’t like it because of the way it looks or you don’t see the need for it, vilify it in your own mind and just ban it.)
==============================================
As Jon S. spells out previously we are in a hell of a fight but have a ever increasing number of legislator's falling in with us. I spoke to J Edmonds today and was told that he and G Hayzlett had presented the DMV with a deadline of tomorrow to introduce their revised policy to the house transportation committee. I will post a update as soon as news reaches me.
I have been actively building a warchest to refute the "homeland security" ploy. Federal level individuals can find no evidence of a policy at the top in regards to this matter. So it is obviously a excuse to implement this farce. I have obtained written letters of support from a KDOT supervisor, four Sheriffs who are meeting with KHP personnel in Topeka tomorrow and Thursday. I am as Jon says unwilling to give them a foothold on this subject so we will hope for a new clasification within the states antique tag rules which avoids the confusing look at the county office when the assistant cannot find a field on the screen to choose "former military vehicle". They can at present only select car or truck.
Also let me say here that Lee Holland from the MVPA has called me on a regular basis asking to be kept abreast of the situation. The MVPA HQ in KC has sent a informative package as well as a letter of introduction to the two primary legislators leading our efforts (Edmonds and Hayzlett). I cannot see at this point that the HQ can do a lot more than is being done now. If at some point the DMV comes out swinging and will not in good faith work to resolve this. Than I will be urgently calling and expecting to see the MVPA cavalry ride over the hill to our rescue.
Kevin Lockwood
|