Register now to get rid of these ads!

Folks Of Interest WI Hambers - FYI; Be Aware - WI Bill SB462

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by LiL' NiCk, Mar 2, 2012.

  1. LiL' NiCk
    Joined: Oct 15, 2002
    Posts: 722

    LiL' NiCk
    Member

    It has been brought to my attention that the Wisconsin Legislators have created a new bill that may adversely affect our hobby and the process of registering and operating historic vehicles in our state.

    PLEASE READ the bill: WI SB462
    (pay close attention to the bottom Section1,,,and the clause Section 1:5 - which pertains to the "inspection" of ANY historic vehicle pre-1968)


    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/proposals/sb462






    Thank you for being informed.....LiL' NiCk


    P.S. There is a meeting in Madison, WEDNESDAY - March 7th - 9am, for anyone who would like voice their concerns.
     
  2. bobwop
    Joined: Jan 13, 2008
    Posts: 6,115

    bobwop
    Member
    from Arley, AL

    @Nick...I am not seeing the phrase you refer to regarding the inspection of pre-1968 vehicles. Perhaps I am just overlooking it, or perhaps the language has changed?

    thanks for bringing this to our attention...and Wingnutz, too.
     
  3. LiL' NiCk
    Joined: Oct 15, 2002
    Posts: 722

    LiL' NiCk
    Member

    @ bobwop: It refers to "special interest" cars. So there is the Bold Section one, (under the main article) then a secondary section 1 below,,within that is section 5, where they mention the inspections and certificates.

    Yeah, i am actually posting this as a favor for Wingnutz.
     

  4. Bob,

    I oppose any proposed legislation that suggests vehicle inspection. This legislation has been proposed by two citizens not the legislators.

    Wisconsin terminated vehicle inspection in the late 1950's or early 1960's. Huge problems, huge taxpayer costs, minimal positive results. Since then, WisDOT has not shown any interest in promoting a mandatory vehicle inspection program

    Can this bill lead to mandatory inspections? We will find out if, the proposed legislation passes.

    Question is, do the citizens of Wisconsin want to take the chance that this bill will open the door for future movement towards vehicle inspection? I don't want to take that chance.

    More specifically, in the past three years Wisconsin DMV has registered about 40,000 vehicles for the "COLLECTOR" license plate.
    To my knowledge, there have been less than 20 denials. Personally, I know of some of the denials being reversed.

    In the past three years WISDMV has registered about 3000 vehicles for the "HOBBYIST" license plate. To my knowledge, there have been less than 15 denials. Personally, I know of some of the denials being reversed.

    In the denial instances, some of the denials were in error, some were legally correct. Out of 43,000 registrations, 35 denials is not a HUGE problem or a violation of our "registration rights".

    In most instances, if, the vehicle does not qualify for "COLLECTOR" or "HOBBYIST" plates, the vehicle can obtain yearly registration.

    Currently, "COLLECTOR" and 'HOBBYIST" registration applications are being approved and processed as usual.

    Bottom line is "REGISTRATION RIGHTS" for our types of cars are not being revoked or threatened. This bill does not give us and our types of cars any more registration rights than we already have.

    Curt R
     
  5. Thanks Curt!!!

    Awesome information!

    I'm giving the same response to this thread as I have for any and all threads concerning Bill 462... and it goes as follows....

    I have had a chance to read the bill and I question any inspection by any official office!

    These types of inspections were prevalent in the 60's and were so "vague and ambiguous" that it led to MVD-5 and later Chapter trans 305 concerning collector, custom and modified vehicles.

    So whenever a bill is proposed with this clause we need to be aware of any and all ramifications as well as collateral damage.

    I hope the creators of this Bill can make a few changes so that any reference to vehicles (Which include the Year, Make, and Modifications) that comply to the original Chapter Trans 305 remain autonomous from the "Military Vehicles" titling and registration.

    Simple fact... give the Government an inch... they take your ruler!:eek:

    As it sits I personally cannot approve the Bill... change a couple things and I think your good to go.:cool:
     
  6. Thanks Mark and Curt.
     
  7. LiL' NiCk
    Joined: Oct 15, 2002
    Posts: 722

    LiL' NiCk
    Member

    seems as though there are manys views on this post. hopefully the hambers are reading and learning the facts....
     
  8. undysworld
    Joined: Jul 31, 2009
    Posts: 44

    undysworld
    Member

    I think you guys are seeing this backward.

    To be factual, the proposed bill reads:
    "If the department refuses registration of a vehicle based on vehicle requirements, including equipment or condition of the vehicle or documentation relating to the vehicle, the applicant for registration may have the vehicle inspected by any person authorized to conduct inspections under s.342.07"

    What's that mean? Break down the sentence.
    If the department refuses registration of a vehicle... ...the applicant for registration may have the vehicle inspected...

    It DOES NOT give DOT the authority to order an inspection.
    It says the APPLICANT (you) MAY have the vehicle inspected, IF your application is denied. Your choice.

    I helped draft the bill. The intent is clearly explained in the Analysis of the bill. Copies are available on-line.

    Will DOT screw with it? Probably. But if/when it gets into court, the owner will have a better chance at winning. It's a huge step in the right direction for owners.

    Currently, if your application gets denied, your ONLY option is to file an appeal. The last appeal was over denial of a 1985 Blazer, and it took over a year. I don't know what it cost in dollars. Could you afford to do this?

    An easy, cheap inspection could prove the same thing: the vehicle is legal.

    That was the goal in adding this clause to the bill. There is nothing in the bill which changes the existing equipment standards. You guys have nothing to lose, and only rights to gain, with this bill.
     
  9. LiL' NiCk
    Joined: Oct 15, 2002
    Posts: 722

    LiL' NiCk
    Member

    thanx undysworld for the other perspective
     
  10. undysworld
    Joined: Jul 31, 2009
    Posts: 44

    undysworld
    Member

    Nick,

    You're welcome. The time is short to get this passed, so I'm trying to help folks to understand the bill. It's pretty involved, but it's a complicated bunch of problems we're trying to fix. Thanks for taking the time to read it over.

    If there's a question about who's interests are being served, consider that we've got support from every owner group of vehicles over 25 years old (the vehicles in question), like hot-rods, originals, modifieds, farmers, construction, logging, etc., as well as SEMA and HVA (Hagarty), etc.

    DOT strongly opposes the bill.

    The bill takes away some of DOT's power, and they don't like it.

    The bill is badly needed. It is in every owner's best interest to support it.

    Paul
     
  11. bobj49f2
    Joined: Jun 1, 2008
    Posts: 1,926

    bobj49f2
    Member

    If the DOT is against it I'm for it.
     
  12. BigDrag
    Joined: Sep 23, 2009
    Posts: 297

    BigDrag
    Member
    from Milwaukee

    Thank you Curt! You have your finger on the DMV pulse but I guess that's nothing new.
    Thanks again for all of your efforts, past and present.
     
  13. Notice... Change of date for the hearing...

    Thursday March 8th 2012 at 10 p.m. in room 411 South

    I oppose the bill as written and my dyslexia had no affect on my ability to read it properly!

    Hope you get it fixed before the hearing!!!!:eek:
     
  14. undysworld
    Joined: Jul 31, 2009
    Posts: 44

    undysworld
    Member

    Wingnutz,
    Yup, you're right about the change of date & time.
    What do you oppose about it? Just curious. I meant no disrespect in suggesting people are seeing it backward. I just don't understand why you would oppose it.
    Paul
     
  15. bobwop
    Joined: Jan 13, 2008
    Posts: 6,115

    bobwop
    Member
    from Arley, AL

    If Curt R. says we should oppose it, then count me in. Curt is the MAN!
     
  16. Lild
    Joined: Feb 22, 2010
    Posts: 260

    Lild
    Member

    So if the department refuses registration, you could have the vehicle inspected to show proof that the car is safe and legal to get the denial reversed?
     
  17. X 2 :cool:
     
  18. undysworld
    Joined: Jul 31, 2009
    Posts: 44

    undysworld
    Member

    Yes, as long as the denial is over equipment of condition. If you get denied because it's a stolen car, then you've still got problems.

    It may be a pia to get an inspection, but it's lots easier and cheaper than filing an appeal and going to court.
     
  19. Just got back from Madison and Paul Underwood's bill got allot of attention which finally opened up the floodgates of negotiations and compromise.

    DOT, DMV, and State patrol went through their protocol regarding the identification and registration differences between the Antique, Collector, Hobbyist and Military Vehicles and expressed their concerns regarding the "Inspection" clause and determined that it would be better to amend current Legislation versus instilling a Bill that could lead to a bunch of confusion.

    I have to admit that I couldn't have been in more of an agreement with DOT... But after hearing the horror stories of the X-Military vehicle owners I would have to blame DOT for the confusion and lack of compassion to these individuals.

    Henceforth there was an overwhelming flow of emotions that permeated through the Bill that commanded immediate attention. Attention that was previously ignored by the prior DOT Chair.

    What it all boils down to is that the Bill won't be passed as written... but it'll gain traction with absolute resolve that will incorporate the input of all parties for an amicable solution.

    Hat's off for Paul, Tom, for stepping up to the plate and really bringing this to the forefront although it didn't turn out the way they wanted it to turn out... it turned out the way it needed to turn out!
     
  20. Thanks much Mark.
     
  21. Thanks guys for being there and looking out for all of us WI guys
     
  22. You're welcome!

    A bigger thanks goes to Curt R for his rational and diligent input and inspiration to me and a few other of us Old Hot Rodders.

    But what will it take for the younger guys in this Hobby to become involved???

    It was quite an event that happened to Paul and Tom that got them into action..!

    During the past 20 years we've become complacent with our legislation without realizing that they could install a couple of rules that would change the whole hobby and if it weren't for the X Military vehicles coming under fire and a couple of brave souls to stand up to the governing bodies... it would've been buried.

    Granted it took a change of the guards and an aggressive bill to bring their issues to the forefront... No offense to the "Authors" of this Bill... it actually was really good for their efforts but if it were passed without the diligent review of members of this Hobby and DOT there would've been adverse collateral damage.

    Again I very happy with the results where as it could've been a disaster if this Bill were made into Law as written.

    Sounds like Paul and Tom aren't quite finished and will have to put a bit more time to get it ironed out... but it sounds like everybody on both sides want to get it resolved as soon as possible.:cool:

    I often wonder who will carry the torch in the next generation of Hot Rodders when we're gone?
     
  23. LiL' NiCk
    Joined: Oct 15, 2002
    Posts: 722

    LiL' NiCk
    Member

    THanx for your involvement,,,,I think this thread helped to educate many people???
     
  24. undysworld
    Joined: Jul 31, 2009
    Posts: 44

    undysworld
    Member

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.