Attention Virginia military vehicle owners!

Me ^ | 3/10/04 | Myself

[BCR #226]

For the last few months, I've been working with the Virginia DMV to come up with a proposal for a bill that would be submitted to the Virginia Legislature by Delegate Dick Black in the next session. The goal of this bill would be to allow military vehicle owners the option of painting an identification number vs. having a plate if the owner so desired in order to keep the vehicle as original looking as possible for shows or just for fun.

Several issues have popped up that we are trying to address though. One is exactly how to identify just what a military vehicle is. Many of us who own these vehicles do not have the government application for title anymore. So that is problem one.

Second problem is making sure that only military vehicles are eligible for this. Basically, as my DMV contact said we don't want some guy painting his Bronco green and calling it a military vehicle.

Third is that we need a way to tell the difference between an active vehicle and a civilian vehicle. Several suggestions so far have been a decal on the rear of the vehicle or possibly a prefix to the painted on ID number to show that it is a privately owned vehicle. I am leaning towards the prefix myself.

Several beneficial offshoots have come up as well. An exemption to the IFTA tax for MV's not used in commercial ventures would be another incentive. There could possibly be others as well.

Why am I explaining all this? Simple. I need help through support, ideas, help working on the bill, people willing to travel to Richmond to meet with me, the DMV people and the State Police. People to lobby the bill when Delegate Black introduces it next semester, and anything else you are willing to do.

Thanks for your time to read this and if you can help, please email me at bcr226@hotmail.com for more detailed info.

Mike

[August West]

Why should the legislature even bother with this? Why can't they have license plates like everyone else? Are they "gay" or something?

[BCR #226]

Because it will save the state a little bit of money, it allows people that have MV's for daily drivers to enter certain classes at shows and competition who can't afford to trailer untagged vehicles in. It also allows collectors to keep the vehicles closer to original without having to damage them to install plates by drilling into bumpers or other parts of the vehicles.

Feel left out? Seems like it by the nature of your post.

Mike

[August West]

As I said, why do they get special rights? If a street-car needs plates, then MVs driven on state roads need plates. It's a matter of basic fairness. The keeping of the MVs closer to original is of no concern to the state. How does it save the state money? Finally, what exactly is a military vehicle? I only feel left out as far as certain groups get illogical special rights, and they are not even gay.

[BCR #226]

It falls under the same allocations as special plates. It will save the state money because they don't have to issue plates or stickers for this alternative.

Indiana, Texas, and a couple of other states have this program in place. I find it curious that you have a problem with it. If you don't own a military vehicle it really won't effect you at all.

Common definition for a military vehicle is any vehicle that has been used by a military force in an active role. There are differences between your average civilian vehicle and a military vehicle.

Mike

[GetOffMyLand]

Cool idea, but will it actually save money in the long run? I can just see the two-hour "awareness seminar" for State Troopers on "Knowing your Painted Plates" or some such nonsense. Maybe the owners could help defray those kinds of costs?

[BCR #226]

That was something I looked into with regards to Indiana. Basically, they just sent a notice out by email to the CLEO's of the state who passed the info down. To date, there hasn't been any problems at all.

Mike

[IYAS9YAS]

An exemption to the IFTA tax for MV's not used in commercial ventures would be another incentive.

IFTA is not a tax.

Personal vehicles owned as recreational vehicles do not qualify under IFTA rules. Try to get it established as a recreational vehicle.

[GladesGuru]

There should be no costs. The owner registers the number with his local tag office where it is entered into the central computer file. Assuming that it is a valid number and not already taken, the owner then pays the state as a regular tag would be paid for.

When an officer needs to run the tag number, it shows up like a stamped tag. Please note the state saves the trouble of tag manufacturing and replacement.

Individuality can save the citizens and the agencies money.

Individuality is our friend.

[August West]

Thanks for the clarification; obviously, I am not knowledgable about MVs. Speaking from the hip, it seems like a frivolous reason to avoid that by which others must abide. I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise to me that our elective representatives would even consider this, but it does. I feel uneasy granting priviledges to special interest groups. It affects me in that others are allowed to do what I am not.

[BCR #226]

That is what I thought as well, truth of the matter is, privately owned military vehicles are being taxed under IFTA. Virginia has an instate only alternative that I use now but they refuse to acknowledge the difference between a private use vehicle or a commercial vehicle. I was refused on the attempt to get the truck classified as an RV.

Mike

[BCR #226]

Why? This is no different than say the "Year accurate" tags made to simulate plates made in a particular year or any other custom plate. As for IFTA, I want the state to stop abusing the agreement and follow it as it is supposed too.

Basically, I'm asking for a custom tag that is accurate to military specifications on looks. That is it. Some groups that do shows grade on that stuff. People like me that may want to participate in those shows but can't afford to trailer a vehicle around all the time will lose points to the guys with the trailer queens that aren't tagged.

What surprised me is the eagerness of the DMV and State Police in this matter. They are all for it but they want the bill to be clear on a few points which is why I am looking for assistance in writing it. I've posted on numerous boards and the response has been most encouraging.

Mike

[FRMAG]

Years ago, I worked at a car dealership in Massachusetts dealerships used "dealer's plates" when folks road tested cars before purchase. To save time the plates were attached to a bracket with a large magnet on one side. THe plates could be placed on any vehicle very quickly with no damage to the vehicle.

Not sure of the insurance ramifications but surely a plate specific registration related to the vehicle could be issued and a restriction in place to limit magnetic plate holders to use for transit to and from shows and exibitions would not be that difficult.

[August West]

If you want to drive it on the roads, you've got to abide by the same rules as everybody else. Losing points at a competition is irrelevent - it is of no concern to the state. I am a bit offended that people think their own little hobbies exempt them from the rules that everybody else must follow.

[BCR #226]

So in other words, you want all the antique plates and stuff removed from circulation? I'm sorry you are offended but it doesn't concern me.

On the point of a concern to the state, anything that will save the state money is a concern that they will entertain.

Now, please explain your remark about exempting them from the rules that eveyone else must follow... we are not being exempted from anything. We still have to pay registration fees every year, we have to get the inspections and pay taxes, abide by the road rules, etc. We are in essence creating another "plate" specific to military vehicles. Nothing more.

The IFTA tax part of the proposal is basically a demand that Virginia follow the letter of the IFTA instead of blanket covering any vehicle they can. I guess you are confusing me since I don't understand why you think we are getting some kind of exemption.

Mike

[gieriscm]

Years ago, I worked at a car dealership in Massachusetts dealerships used "dealer's plates" when folks road tested cars before purchase. To save time the plates were attached to a bracket with a large magnet on one side. THe plates could be placed on any vehicle very quickly with no damage to the vehicle.

I can think of a reason this wouldn't work: RUST. The magnets on the cars used by dealers would only be in place during the test drives. However, on a MV you'd need to leave it in place. I own a MV and park in a private garage for work, and in a private lot at home. Both places are checked regularly by towing companies. Vehicles without tags are hauled away fairly quickly.

Also, I could see people stealing magnet-tags way too easily.

[August West]

I'm sorry you are offended but it doesn't concern me. That's exactly my point; "I'm sorry you lose points, but that doesn't concern me (or the Commonwealth).

The point is, why should MV people get special treatment? The post mentioned not allowing "some guy painting his Bronco green and calling it a military vehicle." Why the hell not? You want to change the rules because you're special. If painting on the plates saves the state so much money, why not allow everybody to do so? I guess some car owners are more equal than other car owners. By the way, what is IFTA?

[CJ Wolf]

Heck using his argument of saving money, we can all paint numbers on our cars instead of having the state manufacture plates. Matter of fact, we don't need the traffic police either, that would save some money there.

[BCR #226]

It seems you are only interested in a pissing match. Sorry but I don't have the time or the desire to indulge you. I'll just answer this...

If you can prove that particular Bronco was in service, then sure, you qualify. It's the same as an antique tag. I couldn't put on on a 2004 Corvette but by your logic, I should be able to.

IFTA is the International Fuel Tax Agreement. It is a Common Carrier/Commercial Vehicle tax.

If you are interested in helping us, that is fine but if you just want to whine about some illusionary unfairness, I'm not going to acknowledge you further.

Mike

[IYAS9YAS]

IFTA is the International Fuel Tax Agreement. It is in effect in the lower 48 states and ten Canadian provinces. It was desined for and allows commercial motor vehicles to travel between jurisdictions (states and provinces) without having to buy fuel trip permits or report fuel taxes due (based on miles traveled in the jurisdiction) individually to each jurisdiction. You have a base license (home jurisdiction) and you use one form to report your total miles traveled and total fuel consumed to get an MPG (usually on a calendar quarter).

By having this, a commercial carrier operating in 47 jurisdictions can file one report instead of 47. They are also only going to be audited by one jurisdiction (where they are based).

It is not supposed to apply to recreational vehicles. However, it DOES apply to ANY vehicle that is not a recreational vehicle by definition (Motorhome, pickup w/camper) that is over 26,000 lbs registered GVW in single vehicle or vehicle with trailer combo or any vehicle with 3 or more axles, regardless of weight.

So, if you have a regular jeep, it doesn't qualify to be IFTA (too light and only two axles). If you have a deuce and a half, it does (possibly over 26,000 gvw, but definitely because of 3 axles).

Again, you pay taxes due based on where you traveled. You get to claim any taxes you paid at the pump against any that may be due. In any quarter, breaking even is unlikely because each state has its own fuel tax rate. But, you are just as likely to get a refund in tax as pay out.

Freepmail me if you want more information. Again, IFTA is not a tax, but merely a mechanism to get the right amount to the right jurisdiction.