It is not illegal if you follow the laws in CA to register it in CA.

The problem occurs when people fill out the CA paperwork, and where it says "Year", then enter 1965. CA does not recognize a Specially Constructed Vehicle built in 2006 (for example) as a 1965 model year. By entering 1965 as the model year on the CA paperwork, per current CA law, this is considered fraud. Per CA law, the model year is the year of build.

Of course, we can all argue whether the current laws suck or not, or if more SB100 Sequence Numbers should be provided, or whether CA should recognize any title from any state at face value, blah, blah, blah, but today we have the laws that we have, and, as everyone can tell from this thread, they are being enforced by the AG's office as they are, until such time that they are changed.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia...9/crm01376.htm



1376 Proving Violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2321


Section 2321 of Title 18 is a trafficking offense. The previous discussion relating to proving violations of 18 U.S.C. § 511 should be consulted. See this Manual at 1375. In the indictment for 18 U.S.C. § 2321 you may wish to use the false or altered VIN actually on the motor vehicle in order to help specify the motor vehicle which is the subject matter of the charge.
To establish a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2321 the government must establish that: (1) the defendant acquired or possessed a road motor vehicle or component on which the vehicle identification number (VIN) or component identification number (after the component standard becomes effective) had been removed, obliterated, tampered with, or altered; (2) the identification number was one required by the United States Department of Transportation; (3) such removal, obliteration, tampering with, or alteration was done unlawfully; (4) the defendant was aware of the unlawful removal, obliteration, tampering with, or alteration; and (5) defendant had an intent to sell or otherwise dispose of the motor vehicle (or component part).
In most cases proof of the defendant's awareness of the stolen nature of the motor vehicle (or component) will satisfy the knowledge requirements. Also, the presence on the defendant's premises of several vehicles or numerous components lacking the proper numbers should help satisfy the knowledge and intent requirements.

and

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia...9/crm01364.htm
1364 Altering or Removing Motor Vehicle Identification Numbers


Section 511(a) of Title 18 makes it a felony knowingly to remove, obliterate, tamper with, or alter an identification number for a road motor vehicle or a road motor vehicle part. Section 511(b) of Title 18 creates exceptions for certain persons who engage in lawful conduct that may result in removal or alteration of an identification number. The legislative history is abundantly clear that subsection (b) is not intended to create a loophole for the operators of "chop shops." See H.R.Rep. No. 1087 on H.R. 6257, 98th Congress, 2d Sess. 23-25 (1984).
Section 511(c) of Title 18 contains the definitions for "identification number," "motor vehicle," "motor vehicle demolisher," and "motor vehicle scrap processor." The term "identification number" means a number or symbol that is inscribed or affixed for purposes of identification under chapter 301 and Part C of subtitle VI of Title 49.
Title 49, Chapter 301 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate motor vehicle safety standards. Pursuant to this authority, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115-Vehicle Identification Number (49 C.F.R. §§ 571.115 and 565.1 to 565.5) requires public VIN numbers on road vehicles (passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles). Part C of subtitle VI of Title 49 (49 U.S.C. § 33101 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate theft prevention (parts marking) standards. The parts marking regulations are set forth in 49 C.F.R. Part 541. The mandatory component identification requirement applies to certain high theft passenger car lines starting with model year 1987. In 1995, the theft prevention (parts marking) standard was expanded to include certain multipurpose passenger vehicles and certain non high theft lines beginning with model year 1997.
Again we are speaking about a set of Federal laws and mandates set forth by both the United States Department of Transportation and the Secretary of Transportation neither of which must answer to the state government of California, no matter how self important their members must make themselves feel.

Lot's more out there on the Federal level, none of which the state of California and it's internal government organizations appears to understand, nor follow.

Again, just my two cents worth on this subject.

Bill S.

I understand all of your arguments concerning origin of title and state laws and such, believe me I do. This is not a single issue problem.

I am the owner of an SPF that was registered illegally by the original owner.

BTW Randy Rosenberg is an expert on this subject having gone through the same drill I went through to legally register and drive our SPF cars.

As for all of the free advice from you good folks in other states.

You know what they say about free advice, "It is worth every penny." :LOL:

To be frank, there are two problems at hand:

1. Tax evasion
2. Smog requirement avoidence.

I would argue that it is the second of the two above that is giving this group the most headache/heartache. If we could be assured of smog exemption for all of our Specially Constructed Vehicles, then this problem would go away very quickly - everyone with an incorrect title would correct it in a heart beat. But with only 500 SB100 Sequence Numbers, not everyone is willing to take the chance of not getting one by 11am on Jan 2.

The problem in CA is that we have a pretty severe air polution problem, such that the state measures air quality and level of this air quality has a strong effect on the federal dollars that CA receives. Poor air quality means less money from the Feds. With money such a big issue in Sacramento, it is easy for me to see why our state government is not willing to allow an unlimited number of vehicles in the state as smog exempt (or increase the number of SB100 Sequence number 10x or 100x). Unfortunately for us, there are more "tree huggers" and "bean counters" in Sacramento than there are SEMA representatives. Yes, CA has a huge car hobby industry, so how come SEMA has been so successful in other states to get new laws that allow for unlimited smog exempt vehicles, but not successful in CA? How come for the past 7+ years, SEMA has been unsuccessful in getting laws passed in CA like they have in other states to help car hobbiests (us)? I think the answer is based on the strength of the "tree huggers" and "bean counters" as compared to SEMA.

That's my simple view of why we are where we are...

P.S. Thanks John. I'm no expert - just another guy who had to correct an illegal title.

with all the problems Cali has this Morgester DA fella feels it is important to take the time and come online to a cobra forum and harass people? and from what I read it is not the first time he has done this.
Never seen the "man" but he strikes me as the type that got picked on and left out by all the hot rodders and jocks in high school....am i close?

Historybuff,

You were told incorrectly. In all cases the vehicle should be registered as a SPCNS with the year it was built, 2006 or whatever. Now when it comes to smogging that vehicle you have two options.

1) SB100 Smog exemption
2) Pass the BAR referee test, based on the year of the engine block, or the year of your registration, but since thats 2007 or whatever this isnt really an option

I've got a Roush motor 351w stroker with a Dart aftermarket block. I tried to pass smog, and the referee was willing to test it as a '69 block (first year for 351w). I failed miserably. Too much cam for the sniffer test. Also failed the carb was not on the approved list, and I didnt have a few other '69 smog requirements. Now if your going for a nice 300-350 horse motor I see no reason this couldnt be a great option, but if your going to make more horsepower than you can use (hey thats almost all of us) you won't pass.

But it doesnt change the year of title on the registration. Hope this helps clarify.


Daryl

Bil, you are absolutely correct. I've said it before on these threads and was trying to avoid saying it again, but since you brought it up, there is a little clause in the U.S. Constitution (forgotten in CA apparently) called the Full, Faith and Credit Clause which requires states to uphold the public acts and judicial determinations of other states. If AZ law says it's a 1965, CA should honor it. JMO.

Actually, if I bought your 1965 Cobra for $250,000 - that's a good deal for a vintage, original Cobra is such fine shape, and CA issued me the title of my newly acquired 1965 Cobra. Yeehaw, I just bot a $1/2M car for $250K!!! I even have an official state document that says it's a 1965 Cobra - if CA recognizes it as an 1965 Cobra, then it must be...right? Then I learn that it is not an original 1965 Cobra, but in fact a "replica" built in 2004 (for example). I got ripped off! But wait, CA says it's a 1965 - hmmm... The seller is long gone, laughing his way to the bank. I'll need to recoup my loss, so I'll just sue CA - per their official documentation, I should have purchased a 1965 Cobra, but the state failed to do due dilligence and misrepresented the vehicle. The state allowed the seller to misrepresent the vehicle, and therefore they are responsible for my loss.

The state does not want any more of these law suits...

Honestly, if you want to bring your vehicle to CA, then you need to follow the current laws in CA to do so. Yes, we can all agrue that the laws suck, but there's not a lot we can do about it. Heck, even SEMA can't seem to do anything about it.

You are out of line with this post.

Having someone in a position of authority within the state government provide periodic news and insight on this important topic is a major benefit to our CA members.

Plus, you are not in that state...as are others on this thread who feel the need to chime in with disdain.

On this thread, just back off and let the CA members ask and obtain information

thanks
ron
ClubCobra Moderator

I just went to the DMV last week to start the registration process. The cleark asked me the year of the car. I said "2007." Every State in the Union has pluses and minuses and, speaking for myself, the pluses are ahead by a huge margin. One plus was today is was near 80 degrees in the SF Bay Area and it was gorgeous.

Thank Mr. Morgester for ALL your postings.

Absolutely wrong, as with many of your posts based on hearsay.

As someone said before.....
"A fool and his money are soon departed".
"If it sounds too good to be true it probably isn't".
IF your stupid and didn't do your homework and bought a car on someones word, I have a nice bridge in San Fransisco I can sell you.

It is what it is! A plastic 'friggin" replica of a great car, just like mine, SPF 848!
And thats the truth! And no I am not kidding, this is a serious subject.
Ask anyone with an illegally registered ca in CA. :(

Buff you can't register a car based on the year of the block. The car should be titled based on the year it was manufactured. You can however have the determination of smog requirements based on the year of the block in some cases.

Rodney,
Morgester can't make changes to the laws for the number of SB100 exemptions. A member of the state legislature must initiate that and get the law passed.

True. The AG's office can't make or change laws, only enforce them. Our only advocate in Sacramento is SEMA. Can someone tell me what they are doing to solve this problem?

I was aware the AG's office does not float and pass bills, and it was wishful thinking, but I thought maybe Mr. Morgester might know of anything circulating around the halls that might increase the limit.

My earlier post was alluding to the constitutional clause that Bill posted. While many of the posts mention 1965 Ford or 1965 Cobra on the title, I specificly mentioned a 1965 Superformance Cobra Coupe label. It is known that Superformance was not in business in 1965, and as long as California transferred it in as it is listed on the original title, no one could misconstrue it as a Shelby/AC/Ford. So a point of resale should not be an issue. However, the Constitution takes presidence over any state law ( see:Civil War for further reading), and California is thumbing their nose at it. I am not referring to those that are illegitimately titled and registered. But the premise that other states titling process is so fraught with fraud that unless they adopt California's policies, any title coming from them will be scrutinized and put through special hoops. I am old enough to recall when cars in Ca. came without heaters as standard equipment. I don't recall that the other states adopting the policy of making heaters optional. I believe that it was required that cars in Ca. had to have heaters. Just as they were made to follow along with the rest of the country then, they should be compelled to under the Constitution now, or all states will begin to operate as independant countries and we will be making treaties within the U.S.

Randy, it is SEMA and NSRA that supported and penned the Illinois ( as well as some other states) titling law that California doesn't accept. I would think that until they accept that process in place in other states it is unlikely to get changed any time soon.

I know this, that is why I keep asking, "What is SEMA doing in Sacramento to solve titling problem in CA thru legislation?" Sacramento is not going to a thing to allow more smog exempt vehicles into the state, as I have stated earlier. I think we all can agree that the only way this multi-faceted problem is going to get solved is thru legislation...right? Our only advocate in Sacramento is SEMA, so what have they been doing in the past 5+ years, since the DMV has been "yanking" titles, to create a real solution for everyone, including those who purchase out of state cars (or move to CA with current 1965 Superformance, 1965 Cobra, etc...)?

Honestly, I think we've beaten this dead horse to death a few too many times. It's time to focus all of this energy on a solution. Who can fix this problem in Sacramento? Who can influence our legislatures? Who can represent all of the hot rod industry, 'cause this is not just a Cobra Replica problem?

Hello SEMA - Where are you?