what do you need to do to register an out of state cobra in calif

[rodneym]

WRONG Rodknock!
If you walked through SB-100, then you ARE an expert. We all managed in spite of the experts at the DMV.
rodneym

[Chaplin]

As I've said numerous times in the middle of Morgester's threads, if the car is legally titled in another state as a 196x, then CA has to honor that designation. CA can't change that "loophole"; it is what the U.S. and CA Constitutions require. Today, there are many states that have adopted the SEMA model legislation and will allow you to legally title a kit car according to the model of the year the kit car replicates. If the car is coming from one of the states that have adopted SEMA legislation or otherwise allow you to legally title a kit car as a 196x, then you should have no problems; your title is legal, no fraud is involved and full faith and credit requires that CA honor it. 'Nuf said. But, as always, caveat emptor. As a buyer, you need to ask the questions and know how the car was titled/registered in the state it is coming from.

[bingo2]

I'm quite content with my situation and I have a clear conscience as I fully disclosed the status of the vehicle and it's history to the DMV experts in Sacramento. I've provided the DMV with evidence of the purchase price and paid all fees and taxes; not an insignificant amount to be certain.

With regard to the insurance inquiry and what the payout would be if the vehicle were to be totaled; well, if the damage from an accident is sufficient to total the vehicle, I most likely won't be around to collect or haggle over a settlement.

[Got the Bug]

Originally Posted by bingo2

I'm quite content with my situation and I have a clear conscience as I fully disclosed the status of the vehicle and it's history to the DMV experts in Sacramento. I've provided the DMV with evidence of the purchase price and paid all fees and taxes; not an insignificant amount to be certain.

With regard to the insurance inquiry and what the payout would be if the vehicle were to be totaled; well, if the damage from an accident is sufficient to total the vehicle, I most likely won't be around to collect or haggle over a settlement.

There is no compelling reason you should avoid registering a car under SB100. I don't get it. Is this a principle thing?

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by Chaplin

As I've said numerous times in the middle of Morgester's threads, if the car is legally titled in another state as a 196x, then CA has to honor that designation. CA can't change that "loophole"; it is what the U.S. and CA Constitutions require. Today, there are many states that have adopted the SEMA model legislation and will allow you to legally title a kit car according to the model of the year the kit car replicates. If the car is coming from one of the states that have adopted SEMA legislation or otherwise allow you to legally title a kit car as a 196x, then you should have no problems; your title is legal, no fraud is involved and full faith and credit requires that CA honor it. 'Nuf said. But, as always, caveat emptor. As a buyer, you need to ask the questions and know how the car was titled/registered in the state it is coming from.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but states can regulate emissions from vehicles. CA makes them tougher all the time by tightening green house emissions. They also change the gas formulation a lot too.

CARB and how it regulates emissions may close the loophole for you, no matter what the title says for model year.

[mrmustang]

Originally Posted by redd

David forget what i just sent i saw the pm thanks for the help

Whatever you decide, speak with the DMV office of your choice, but get everything from them in writing, either by fax, or via the USPS. Should an audit turn up irregularities with your purchase, and they issue a letter of return (IE: they take the title to your car back), then you have a leg to stand on. Without something in writing, you could open up a can of worms with your state DMV as one dept does not always agree with the other when it comes to these cars.


Bill S.

[bingo2]

Originally Posted by Got the Bug

There still isn't a compelling reason not to go through SB100. I don't get it. Is this a principal thing?

No, it isn't a matter of principle and even though the process appears to be relatively painless, I don't think it is necessary in my case or in any other with identical circumstances. However, I will contact the DMV Technical Services division once again and seek their expert advice. Apparently many people think that all DMV employees are ignorant or stupid; my experience with the top tier level in the department indicates otherwise.

I hear ya but I think that 'full faith and credit' will go out the window if you know it's not a '66.

I don’t think this statement has any merit whatsoever. I didn’t attempt to perpetrate a fraud or misrepresent the vehicle as something it isn’t. I made full disclosure when performing my due diligence. The vehicle has been designated a 1966 by two States; three if you include California.

[jhv48]

Originally Posted by bingo2

.I don’t think this statement has any merit whatsoever. I didn’t attempt to perpetrate a fraud or misrepresent the vehicle as something it isn’t. I made full disclosure when performing my due diligence. The vehicle has been designated a 1966 by two States; three if you include California.

So, then, what's the problem? Take the title to DMV, register it as a 1966 whatever and pay the registration and use tax fees and you're done.

The insurance thing is another story. If you total it, the insurance company will pay you what it was worth at the time of the accident, Not what an original 1966 was worth, but what your replica was worth. If you represent it as an original 1966 for insurance reasons, you might want to look up the word fraud in the dictionary.

And, I don't know what happens in your town, but in mine, the local police walk car shows checking license plates and registrations looking for improper registrations, and they can tell the difference between an original and a replica. You might find yourself answering a few questions from time to time.
Probably not a problem, but possibly.

[bingo2]

Originally Posted by jhv48

So, then, what's the problem? Take the title to DMV, register it as a 1966 whatever and pay the registration and use tax fees and you're done.

The insurance thing is another story. If you total it, the insurance company will pay you what it was worth at the time of the accident, Not what an original 1966 was worth, but what your replica was worth. If you represent it as an original 1966 for insurance reasons, you might want to look up the word fraud in the dictionary.

And, I don't know what happens in your town, but in mine, the local police walk car shows checking license plates and registrations looking for improper registrations, and they can tell the difference between an original and a replica. You might find yourself answering a few questions from time to time.
Probably not a problem, but possibly.

The vehicle is already titled and registered and all appropriate fees and taxes have been paid. Perhaps you didn't read the entire thread.

As for the insurance; I made full disclosure to AAA and they chose to insure it as a 1966. There has been no misrepresentation.

I want to extend my apologies to the OP; this thread got a little off course.

[Chaplin]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but states can regulate emissions from vehicles. CA makes them tougher all the time by tightening green house emissions. They also change the gas formulation a lot too.

CARB and how it regulates emissions may close the loophole for you, no matter what the title says for model year.

That's true. CA could change their emissions laws and make all 196x titled cars subject to stricter emissions requirements, and then everyone with a 60s car would be screwed. But short of doing passing a sweeping law that affected all cars, they can't single out a kit car legally titled in another state as a 196x and subject it to different emissions requirements than other 196x cars in the state.

[Got the Bug]

Some people like to roll the hard way and make life more interesting that it needs to be. I don't get it, but roll on man.

[Got the Bug]

A reliable source who started the SB100 process last week told me that there are still (20) SB100 certificates available for 2010.

Clearly a sign of the weak economy, but a huge opportunity for those who might be in registration limbo or are going to take delivery of a new car soon.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by Chaplin

But short of doing passing a sweeping law that affected all cars, they can't single out a kit car legally titled in another state as a 196x and subject it to different emissions requirements than other 196x cars in the state.

I don't see why they can't. Again, I'm not a legal expert, but SPCNS cars were never manufactured in 196x. They are not truly 196x cars. They are different from cars manufactured in 196x's. I understand the "full faith and credit" thing, but in my little brain, how do you legally title an SPCNS car as a 196x anyway?

Laws change all the time. I would get the SB100 exemption and sleep at night. But that's just me. I worry a lot by nature.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

I don't see why they can't.

RK's right. Cars don't get equal protection rights. The legislature could pass a law that requires stricter emissions for all "blue" cars if they wanted to. All they would have to do is come up with any conceivable set of facts that provides a rational basis for doing it and *poof* it's fine. And in the real world, nothing ever fails that test.

[rodneym]

Originally Posted by patrickt

RK's right. Cars don't get equal protection rights. The legislature could pass a law that requires stricter emissions for all "blue" cars if they wanted to. All they would have to do is come up with any conceivable set of facts that provides a rational basis for doing it and *poof* it's fine. And in the real world, nothing ever fails that test.

You mean like recently proposed legislation in California where CARB wanted to make black cars illegal? Tinting mandatory? Up to a year in jail for low tire pressure? Look on the CARB website and you'll see a thousand pages on how they want to screw us. Too many lawyers with nothing to do.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by rodneym

Up to a year in jail for low tire pressure?

That's pretty funny. I can hear it now "What are you in for?" "Uhh, 10 lbs. of cocaine -- and you?" "Me? 10 lbs. in my right front tire."

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by patrickt

That's pretty funny. I can hear it now "What are you in for?" "Uhh, 10 lbs. of cocaine -- and you?" "Me? 10 lbs. in my right front tire."

And now we have Governor Moonbeam again. Ruh roh.

EDIT: Just kidding to the Government censors.

[Randy Rosenberg]

I just learned that CARB can audit mechanics for checking that all cars that come to them for service must have their tires checked/inflated to the specifications on the door jam. The mechanic must keep the records for 3 years.