Wrong Pump in AZ

msmith1199 wrote:

lbligh wrote:

msmith1199 wrote:

dodge guy wrote:

msmith1199 wrote:

TucsonJim wrote:
When they are talking about three or more axles, does that also include items being towed? For example, does a two axle motor home become a four axle vehicle if it's pulling a toad?

No. Things being towed by the vehicle are specifically excluded.

OK, but it doesn't say that at the pump or in the tax code!

Well then if it's not on the label it must not be because we all know that labels are the law!

No... the label isn't the law, it is the consumer warning about the law. The same information was found in the link to the State of Arizona .pdf I provided yesterday. Additionally, please note the specific reference to ARS 28-5432. You know... the statute that you claimed had nothing to do with the discussion. Too funny!!!

Please pay attention and keep up. We've already determined this likely doesn't apply to motorhomes! You're wrong, get over it. The original guy that got the ticket was in a Semi-Truck Conversion. Nobody that was in a Class A DP over 26k or with three axles has confirmed getting a ticket yet. So once again, you're wrong!

Sorry my friend, you have determined NOTHING. You have an opinion. Your opinion and $3.00 will get you a cup of coffee in most places. Apparently you want to believe that motorhomes are exempt when there is no mention of them being exempt in the list of exempt vehicles. Somehow you believe that the State remaining silent on RVs exempts them, even when they have documented in the statute the list of exempt vehicles. Remember... you are the same guy that said that ARS 28-5432 had nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Clearly, everyone can see that is NOT the case in the materials provided.

NeverHome2 wrote:

msmith1199 wrote:
I'm simply trying to figure the current law as written and I think we've done that.

Hope the AZ judicial system agrees with you. Are you willing to take that chance?

Where is it written that a Toterhome is not an RV and is not registered/titled as such? If the vehicle was commercially built using an incomplete truck chassis, by law there must me an MSO (Manufacturer's Statement of Origin) by that manufacturer. The same is true with every class A & C motorhome. When the incomplete chassis is manufactured, an incomplete vehicle MSO is produced, then when the body/house manufacturer completes the vehicle, they produce a completed vehicle MSO and declare the vehicle type. If they declare the unit to be an RV, that is how it would be registered and titled. Why would it be any different than a standard class C that is constructed from a van cutaway chassis in most cases? Is everyone to believe that a Toterhome has an MSO that states it is something else than an RV?

lbligh wrote:

Believe me, the judge will not be left to decide this on their own. The State will have their attorney there to make the State's case and will likely have everything necessary to support their position on the long standing law.

Agreed. So isn't it time to get the law changed????

NeverHome2 wrote:

msmith1199 wrote:
I'm simply trying to figure the current law as written and I think we've done that.

Hope the AZ judicial system agrees with you. Are you willing to take that chance?

Yes. If I go to AZ this winter I'll be buying the cheaper fuel at the auto pumps like I always do.

NeverHome2 wrote:
Everyone has their opinion on this issue. This forum is the perfect place to air opinions but remember that everything said here is just that…an opinion on the interpretation of the AZ law in question. Judges and lawyers have their opinions too. That is what keeps the lawyers in business!!!

I understand that 10Ponies is planning to fight the citation. That is all well and good but what if he doesn't win? Going before a judge with a law that is not clear such as this one is kinda scary if you ask me. The judge needs to interpret the law to make a decision. Do you think the interpretation will lean toward $1,000 in the state coffers OR no fine and loss of some additional tax revenue in the future?

If anyone truly wants a resolution to this issue, they need to contact the AZ legislature. They are the ONLY ones that can resolve this issue. The legislature is the governing body that MAKES the laws and can AMEND the laws, NOT the judicial system. (Sorry, msmith1199 but your Criminal Justice class would be no help in changing laws)

If there is anyone out there that is from AZ, I encourage you to contact your local state representative by mail/email/phone to have this law amended with clear language that refers specifically to RVs. It doesn’t hurt to have out of state RVers contact them too but if you are a voter, you can carry more weight.

One more thing…. PLEASE quit quoting other posts especially if they are long!!!!

NEXT!

Believe me, the judge will not be left to decide this on their own. The State will have their attorney there to make the State's case and will likely have everything necessary to support their position on the long standing law.

msmith1199 wrote:
I'm simply trying to figure the current law as written and I think we've done that.

Hope the AZ judicial system agrees with you. Are you willing to take that chance?

NeverHome2 wrote:
Everyone has their opinion on this issue. This forum is the perfect place to air opinions but remember that everything said here is just that…an opinion on the interpretation of the AZ law in question. Judges and lawyers have their opinions too. That is what keeps the lawyers in business!!!

I understand that 10Ponies is planning to fight the citation. That is all well and good but what if he doesn't win? Going before a judge with a law that is not clear such as this one is kinda scary if you ask me. The judge needs to interpret the law to make a decision. Do you think the interpretation will lean toward $1,000 in the state coffers OR no fine and loss of some additional tax revenue in the future?

If anyone truly wants a resolution to this issue, they need to contact the AZ legislature. They are the ONLY ones that can resolve this issue. The legislature is the governing body that MAKES the laws and can AMEND the laws, NOT the judicial system. (Sorry, msmith1199 but your Criminal Justice class would be no help in changing laws)

If there is anyone out there that is from AZ, I encourage you to contact your local state representative by mail/email/phone to have this law amended with clear language that refers specifically to RVs. It doesn’t hurt to have out of state RVers contact them too but if you are a voter, you can carry more weight.

One more thing…. PLEASE quit quoting other posts especially if they are long!!!!

NEXT!

Where did I ever say anything about me changing laws? Huh? I'm simply trying to figure the current law as written and I think we've done that. The guy that got the ticket going to court really isn't going to solve the issue either way as he was in a Semi-Truck conversion, and not a standard Class A motorhome. Now in my OPINION (And yes I'm always careful to point out it's my OPINION) I don't think the law applies to the Semi-Truck conversions either assuming they are privately owned and not being used for any commercial purposes and used as a motorhome, and not a cargo hauler. Some of those semi-conversions are toy haulers and that may make them fall under the definition of "Truck" in the AZ law.

lbligh wrote:

msmith1199 wrote:

dodge guy wrote:

msmith1199 wrote:

TucsonJim wrote:
When they are talking about three or more axles, does that also include items being towed? For example, does a two axle motor home become a four axle vehicle if it's pulling a toad?

No. Things being towed by the vehicle are specifically excluded.

OK, but it doesn't say that at the pump or in the tax code!

Well then if it's not on the label it must not be because we all know that labels are the law!

No... the label isn't the law, it is the consumer warning about the law. The same information was found in the link to the State of Arizona .pdf I provided yesterday. Additionally, please note the specific reference to ARS 28-5432. You know... the statute that you claimed had nothing to do with the discussion. Too funny!!!

Please pay attention and keep up. We've already determined this likely doesn't apply to motorhomes! You're wrong, get over it. The original guy that got the ticket was in a Semi-Truck Conversion. Nobody that was in a Class A DP over 26k or with three axles has confirmed getting a ticket yet. So once again, you're wrong!

Everyone has their opinion on this issue. This forum is the perfect place to air opinions but remember that everything said here is just that…an opinion on the interpretation of the AZ law in question. Judges and lawyers have their opinions too. That is what keeps the lawyers in business!!!

I understand that 10Ponies is planning to fight the citation. That is all well and good but what if he doesn't win? Going before a judge with a law that is not clear such as this one is kinda scary if you ask me. The judge needs to interpret the law to make a decision. Do you think the interpretation will lean toward $1,000 in the state coffers OR no fine and loss of some additional tax revenue in the future?

If anyone truly wants a resolution to this issue, they need to contact the AZ legislature. They are the ONLY ones that can resolve this issue. The legislature is the governing body that MAKES the laws and can AMEND the laws, NOT the judicial system. (Sorry, msmith1199 but your Criminal Justice class would be no help in changing laws)

If there is anyone out there that is from AZ, I encourage you to contact your local state representative by mail/email/phone to have this law amended with clear language that refers specifically to RVs. It doesn’t hurt to have out of state RVers contact them too but if you are a voter, you can carry more weight.

One more thing…. PLEASE quit quoting other posts especially if they are long!!!!

NEXT!

msmith1199 wrote:

dodge guy wrote:

msmith1199 wrote:

TucsonJim wrote:
When they are talking about three or more axles, does that also include items being towed? For example, does a two axle motor home become a four axle vehicle if it's pulling a toad?

No. Things being towed by the vehicle are specifically excluded.

OK, but it doesn't say that at the pump or in the tax code!

Well then if it's not on the label it must not be because we all know that labels are the law!

No... the label isn't the law, it is the consumer warning about the law. The same information was found in the link to the State of Arizona .pdf I provided yesterday. Additionally, please note the specific reference to ARS 28-5432. You know... the statute that you claimed had nothing to do with the discussion. Too funny!!!