Privately owned armored military combat vehicles unfit for licensing in Kansas

[Al Nickolson]

Message from Ian Wallace,


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 I have no idea how this will impact those already licensed – maybe they will have their licenses rescinded or not renewed.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!

Ian Wallace