CA: AB 2461 Changing and Extending Amnesity

[RodKnock]

Well, when writing in the "make" and "model year" on the CA application for title form, I would be VERY circumspect about writing in 1965 Ford or 1965 Cobra or 1965 Kirkham or whatever. You sign under penalty of perjury, no matter what your "insert State here" legal title says.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/forms/reg/reg343.pdf

You have a legal title from another state stating that you have a 1965 something, but it isn't a 1965 something. It replicates a 1965 something, but the CA form doesn't ask for what year it replicates.

Personally, I would be nervous and always looking over my shoulder.

[kayakjack]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

Well, when writing in the "make" and "model year" on the CA application for title form, I would be VERY circumspect about writing in 1965 Ford or 1965 Cobra or 1965 Kirkham or whatever. You sign under penalty of perjury, no matter what your "insert State here" legal title says.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/forms/reg/reg343.pdf

You have a legal title from another state stating that you have a 1965 something, but it isn't a 1965 something. It replicates a 1965 something, but the CA form doesn't ask for what year it replicates.

Personally, I would be nervous and always looking over my shoulder.

This whole area is a bit grey. Not black and white. If you own a car from a state whose laws align with the SEMA suggested template and therefore have a legal title saying the year the vehicle represents is the year of record (say 1965), answering California's "Make" and "Model Year" is not very clear.

Different people could have different interpretations.

Jack

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by kayakjack

This whole area is a bit grey. Not black and white. If you own a car from a state whose laws align with the SEMA suggested template and therefore have a legal title saying the year the vehicle represents is the year of record (say 1965), answering California's "Make" and "Model Year" is not very clear.

Different people could have different interpretations.

Jack

Jack, it's very clear to me. The form doesn't read "Make It Replicates" and "Model Year It Replicates."

The bulk of these cars REALLY pollute the air, A LOT, but for the new green e-rod alternatives or so I've read. My car was built in 2007, but not on this green earth does it meet federal or state guidelines on anything remotely resembling a 2007 vehicle in terms of smog, crash testing, etc. I should need an exemption (SPCNS/SB100) to the rules and I got one. I think it's a pretty good system in my tiny part of the world. Is it perfect, no, but not bad.

[roadrod2000]

It’s good to see that the amnesty program has been extended so that all the procrastinators out there can get in on this. Doing the right thing should always be your first choice, but some people still like to learn things the hard way. If you have a California registration that says your car is something that it is not that is fraud and you face the possibility of prosecution and/or confiscation of the car. Whether or not it was registered maliciously is something that a court would decide. The DMV can probably be blamed for a lot of the mistakes that were made during registration of these cars and that is why they are offering the chance to make corrections (OK I know they are trying to come up with more tax money as well) so I say why not? We don’t know what will happen In the future and the fact that this is available now may come back to “bite” you if you don’t take advantage of it when they change the rules later. Also, the SB100 numbers are aplenty right now so “smog exempt status” is somewhat easier to get.

[kayakjack]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

Jack, it's very clear to me. The form doesn't read "Make It Replicates" and "Model Year It Replicates."

The bulk of these cars REALLY pollute the air, A LOT, but for the new green e-rod alternatives or so I've read. My car was built in 2007, but not on this green earth does it meet federal or state guidelines on anything remotely resembling a 2007 vehicle in terms of smog, crash testing, etc. I should need an exemption (SPCNS/SB100) to the rules and I got one. I think it's a pretty good system in my tiny part of the world. Is it perfect, no, but not bad.

California seems to be a special case. Nothing new there. In most other places in the country if you present a valid 1965 title from another state and say "hey it wasn't really built in 1965, it was built in 2007", the DMV will tell you, "Sorry, once it is legally titled, that is it. 1965 it is."

Jack

[Randy Rosenberg]

Originally Posted by kayakjack

This whole area is a bit grey. Not black and white. If you own a car from a state whose laws align with the SEMA suggested template and therefore have a legal title saying the year the vehicle represents is the year of record (say 1965), answering California's "Make" and "Model Year" is not very clear.

Different people could have different interpretations.

Jack

The words I bolded are exactly what Mr. Morgester refers to when he wrote about how the non-CA state legally titled it. In this case, where the SEMA worded legislation has passed, those cars are titled under this SEMA legislation are legally assigned "1965" as the Model Year. IMHO, replicas titled this way under the SEMA law can be titled in CA as "1965", since the "1965" title is 100% legal and acceptable in CA.