By on February 28, 2015

MN_Tow_Truck-550px

Kansas City’s KCTV reported this week on an attempt to repair a 2012 Missouri state law that has led to a dramatic increase in car thefts. The law, which allows people to sell vehicles 10 years or older without a title, was originally intended to help rural property owners dispose of derelict vehicles and outdated machinery that would otherwise be left to rot. Criminals, however, soon discovered that they could scoop up virtually any vehicle that met the standard and sell it to scrap yards for a tidy profit.

The primary culprits, the story asserts, are crooked tow truck drivers. Old cars behind tow trucks are such an ordinary sight that cars can be taken in broad daylight. At the scrapyard, the drivers fudge the VIN or make other paperwork “mistakes” and escape with their payout before anyone notices. In many cases the cars are shredded before the owners can even report their theft.

Despite the fact that, in the wake of the law’s enactment, many Missouri police agencies noted an almost immediate rise in the number old cars being stolen, “Show-me” State leaders have allowed the situation to persist. Local Leaders, however, did act. Kansas City, for example, enacted a local ordinance directing scrapyards to hold vehicles for three days prior to disposal, but many of these laws can be avoided simply by taking vehicles to recycling centers outside of those jurisdictions.

The story ends on a hopeful note with news that one Missouri State representative, State Senator Jason Holsman, is looking to correct what he calls these “unintended consequences of the law.” But my personal experience is that the wheels of government often grind slowly and, until the situation is finally corrected, owners of old cars in Missouri need to watch their backs.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

94 Comments on “Missouri Law Lets Thieves Scrap Your Classics...”


  • avatar
    Drzhivago138

    *Lets. As in, “allows.”

    “Let’s” is the contraction of “let us.” This is elementary school stuff.

    • 0 avatar

      *sigh*

      Just a couple of quick clicks and I can say I have no idea what you’re talking about there…

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        Um, thanks…? I hesitate to simply say thank you, because it implies the slight vitriol of my original comment was acceptable, but at the same time, “let’s” was a legitimate error that warranted correcting.

        So I guess I’ll just say…I’ve never been so satisfied to receive a scathing comeback to my own peevishness.

        (And I’m sincere about that, no sarcasm)

        • 0 avatar

          My sigh was intended to represent my own disappointment in myself for making such a stupid mistake (and in a headline no less) rather than take a shot at you. The best and the brightest have always been sticklers and I usually end up editing my stuff a dozen times after I post it anyhow.

          No scathing intended in my reply at all, I’d like to have done better from the beginning. Even though its been a while, I’ve written enough stuff for TTAC to understand that we are all friends here.

    • 0 avatar

      I’m pretty sure that most of the TTAC writers know the rules for apostrophes, ultimately they replace missing letters, but in my case homonyms and near homonyms are stored in adjacent places in my brain and the wrong word gets typed. I wish I had a dollar for every time I tried to type think and typed thing.

      I know that it’s annoying to see what looks like an elementary error, particularly in something that is otherwise well-written, but it’s also annoying to write a carefully thought 2,500 word essay and get ragged over one superfluous apostrophe. I will say, however, that at least yours is a legitimate complaint about a mistake. Most annoying are the folks whose complaints are erroneous. My favorite is the time a reader complained about a run on sentence that wasn’t a run on sentence. He even cited some “rule of thumb” about commas that his “language arts teacher” wife teaches, unfortunately, to her students.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        Ah, but I’ve got two things the average grammar Nazi doesn’t have:
        1. A copy of Analyzing English Grammar, 5th ed. within arm’s reach. Let’s learn about morphemes and qualifiers and memorize the twelve verb tenses!
        2. Since I’m only about halfway through the book: A knowledge of when to keep my mouth shut. Mostly.

        • 0 avatar

          Grammar’s not my strong suit but I went to school when they still taught the basics. Does any school in America today teach kids how to diagram a sentence?

          It’s interesting how I’ll be editing an article for the umpteenth time and I know that something just isn’t right and finally I catch some kind of tense or plural disagreement.

          • 0 avatar
            PeriSoft

            The past, present, and future walked into a bar.

            It was tense.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            I didn’t learn how to diagram sentences until two weeks ago. Elementary school taught all the parts of speech and how to use them, but I didn’t get into more advanced conjugation until I started German.

      • 0 avatar
        56BelAire

        Personally, Ive always thougt that people whom find in necissarry to korrect typos, spellin mistake”s, an grammer on internet artricles are dic head’s.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          I know, right? How dare somebody try to improve the world around them. It’s not like an education ever did anyone any good.

          • 0 avatar
            56BelAire

            So when you’re at McDonald’s having lunch do you spin around and correct the people in the booth behind you when you hear incorrect grammar?…………..”in order to improve the world around you”.

            If you’re really that concerned with proper English usage you should volunteer at the local high school in the after school program for kids who can’t read at 5th grade level.

    • 0 avatar
      AJ

      Thanks Drz for wasting our time.

    • 0 avatar
      shaker

      I’ve annoyed people at work by mentioning (usually in private) grammatical/speech errors – but only for the person’s own good. Nothing takes the professional shine off of an otherwise intelligent person’s presentation than (an example that recently happened) of one uttering the phrase “…this runs the whole gambit of the project.”

      But then I’ll find myself making similar errors, and: (face palm).

  • avatar
    eManual

    I’m glad to be in Indiana rather than Missouri. All four of the cars I fix up are over 15 years old. But what’s to stop Missouri folks from stealing cars in the adjoining states?

  • avatar
    jim brewer

    A defacto legalization of car theft is pretty scandalous in my opinion.

    The press lets the politicians off way too easy in these cases. Who sponsored the original bill? Who passed it in committee? What constituency wanted the bill in the first place? Its the internet age and easy for a reporter to check these things out.

    Moving to an honor system predictably has this threat. Did they consider that? Why doesn’t some reporter ask?

    • 0 avatar

      I didn’t want the article itself to devolve entirely into politics, although I expected the conversation in the comments would.

      The fact is, you are right. It IS scandalous and this article – http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2013/02/20/281908.htm – makes it even more apparent that the person who originally attached the clause to a bill bill just flat doesn’t care.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        It’s the kind of law that sounds good to the uninformed who like the sound of deregulation for the sake of it.

        Some of these people need to type “statute of frauds” into Google. There are good reasons why it should be mandatory for certain transactions to be documented in writing.

        • 0 avatar
          krhodes1

          There comes a point where the value of the documentation is way more than outweighed by the hassle factor in dealing with the state. Why should a car that is worth next to nothing be more hassle to sell than an expensive bicycle, as an example? Or any of the myriad things that are as expensive as a cheap car, but eminently portable.

          If anything it should be value based – worth more than $XXXX, then you have to deal with titles. Once average book value is below that figure, do with it what you will.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            So you want to make poor people — the most vulnerable people in our society — vulnerable to thieves. That’s just awesome.

            How about this: You should need to get permission from the owner to take his car.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            Isn’t it great that bikes are not a hassle to sell? I live in a beach community where pretty much everyone has had a bicycle or three stolen in the past half a dozen years. Sure glad it’s easy to sell them! If only cars were as easy to sell!

            This law stuck an arbitrary age as the cut off for incentivized car theft. Nobody in MO said anything about value. Want to steal a 2004 A8 and sell it to an aluminum smelter? No problem! Aren’t Range Rovers heavy in aluminum content? Hmm…

            Probably not a coincidence that Engler is the kind of Rino that calls conservatives wingnuts. This is progressive social engineering.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The American Conservative Union gives him a 91% rating.

            The Missouri Progressive Vote Coalition gives him a 20% rating.

            He’s your kind of people.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            The American Conservative Union is an appendage of the Republican establishment. They highly rate shameless progressives like cap and traitor Lindsey Graham. As for MO progressives not welcoming their fellow traveler, that’s just the propaganda of incrementalism.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            So the American Conservative Union is too liberal for you, and the people who run the Republican Party aren’t Republicans.

            Yes, you really are a nutjob.

          • 0 avatar

            Good in theory, but who decides what a car is worth? Further, I’ve seen cars in scrap yards worth more than some of the cars I have on the road myself. Just because my car isn’t worth a ton (pun not originally intended) shouldn’t mean my property is any less protected. Many locations are requiring valid photo id and finger printing at scrap yards which seems pretty reasonable.

            I’ve scrapped cars without titles (cut them up so they are no longer road worthy), and I own a car or two as a future project that I don’t have a title to currently.

        • 0 avatar
          MrGreenMan

          “He said that when the bill reached the Senate Transportation Committee in May 2012, it received the blessing of the Missouri Highway Patrol.”

          Them police, always for the deregulation!

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      It probably didn’t occur to Rep. Kevin Engler of Farmington, MO that making it easier to get rid of car more than 10 years old would lead to car theft. Instead, he seems unusually concerned with littering and keep up appearances. I wouldn’t be surprised if some busybody real estate agent and her friends pushed for this law change and nobody in the legislature bothered to question its impact.

      http://www.firedupmissouri.com/mopedia/kevin-engler
      In 2009, Engler attracted attention by proposing, then withdrawing a bill to make littering a capital offense. In a short speech on the Senate floor, he referred to constituents who litter as “white trash” and “dumb rednecks.” When criticized for these remarks, Engler said, “the only ones I’ve called names are the ones doing it. If they are offended, good.”

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        I think he knew exactly what he was doing and placed his and his backers’ interests over the property rights of others, exactly like every other progressive.

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          “Rino that calls conservatives wingnuts. This is progressive social engineering.”

          “placed his and his backers’ interests over the property rights of others, exactly like every other progressive.”

          Do you have to put your political spin on EVERY comment you make? Your political agenda is getting more like DW’s anti-Cadillac crusade every day

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            In CJ’s mind, anyone who doesn’t stomp on kittens is a progressive.

            As noted in my post above, this guy is highly rated by the American Conservative Union and gets low marks from a state progressive group.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      “A defacto legalization of car theft is pretty scandalous in my opinion.”

      It’s not that at all. Theft is still theft regardless of the barriers to commit it. The argument here is whether changing the law to require more documentation would reduce thefts. The flip side is that it can sometimes be hard to get a title for a car, then what? You’re stuck with it forever?

  • avatar
    JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

    I willingly had my license photo copied and stood by the scrap car still on the trailer for a picture the last time I sent one to to the crusher.

    Perhaps Mo should require that. Imagine being made to stand by the car you just stole for a picture thatll go directly to the fuzz along with your ID once its discovered. Probably not, lol.

  • avatar
    LectroByte

    Seems like an especially ridiculous law, isn’t the average age of a car on the road now something like 11 years old?

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    I’d be so much simpler to ban politician from thinking for themselves.

  • avatar
    -Nate

    WELCOME HOME Thomas ! .

    This is a shameful thing indeed .

    -Nate

  • avatar
    George B

    Rep. Kevin Engler clearly messed up. The old law allowed vehicles more than 20 years old to be sold for scrap. It’s not like there is a huge problem with derelict vehicles from the late 90s with no titles. The problem is old vehicles last titled before computer records.

    Old cars are part of the DIY crime prevention rural property owners have to to do discourage trespassing and theft. Where insurance is sufficiently low, it make sense to keep an old car or two both as a winter beater and to give the impression that more people live on the property than actually do. Even cars that barely move can be repositioned periodically to leave the impression of extra people. Fully non-functional cars can be used for target practice out in the field. Nothing like objects full of recent bullet holes to add the exclamation point to the ubiquitous No Trespassing signs.

    • 0 avatar
      gtemnykh

      My first thought was, the first couple of these crooks that get picked off by a PO’d farmer with a 30-06 should “clear things up” pretty quickly.

      • 0 avatar
        George B

        Farmers don’t shoot people for trespassing. Simply appearing with bright lights and a gun will cause normal thieves to quickly retreat. The message is the owner is present and prepared to shoot.

  • avatar
    -Nate

    ” I’d be so much simpler to ban politician from thinking for themselves.

    That’s pretty much what ‘ citizens united ‘ did to America , how do you like things now ? .

    -Nate

    • 0 avatar
      darkwing

      Why stop there? I’m sure you can throw in a few more shibboleths while you’re at it. The Koch brothers have to be involved somehow, right?

      Talk about people not being able to think for themselves…sheesh.

    • 0 avatar

      Will you show as much concern for the millions of dollars poured into the Clinton Foundation by overseas donors and governments looking to buy influence with Hillary?

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

      Re: Citizens United , if you don’t have the right to advertise in support of a political idea, you don’t really have free speech. If you do have that right, you don’t lose it when you join with like minded people to act together.

      • 0 avatar

        Yeah, and if you have billions of dollars with which to advertise, your speech gets broadcast all over the country, whereas if you’re a regular American citizen, your speech might cover your block.

        Furthermore, because of Citizens United, our representatives have to spend literally most of their time fundraising instead of understanding all the unforeseen consequences of the laws they are passing.

        Overseas donors to the Clinton Foundation is not the same sort of thing, because they are only potentially influencing Hillary, who may well not make it into the white house. I’m not condoning that, but it’s not the same as having a citizens united which results in the wealthiest tenth of a percent of Americans being able to have more influence over the country than the rest of us put together.

        • 0 avatar
          Jeff Waingrow

          David, nicely put. I’m surprised that Ronnie doesn’t see the distortions that occur when enormous money competes with regular citizens’ relatively tiny voices. And it’s not even a Democratic vs. Republican issue, because both parties have their huge donors who hide behind corporate and other legal constructs. BTW, a corporation is NOT a person. Rather, it is a legal creation that permits owners to be shielded from various liabilities that you and I normally are not. (It was not always so.) That’s why lawyers describe “piercing the corporate veil” in trying to get at offenders. You’ve seen how well that’s worked with Wall Street swindlers, have you not?

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          …..but it’s not the same as having a citizens united which results in the wealthiest tenth of a percent of Americans being able to have more influence over the country than the rest of us put together…..

          This sums it up nicely. Well said. Sad that the fat cats who already had massive power now have limitless power to brainwash people to see things their way. For almost forever, both sides of the aisle agreed that unlimited money from corporations must be kept in check. From the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court:

          “At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”

          This was a highly flawed ruling. And the damage is well under way.

        • 0 avatar
          Mr. Orange

          But its more than just more money equaling more speech. While American courts have expanded the rights of corporations and rich money donors to influence our elections. At the same state legislatures and governors have decided to reduce and limit the ability of our citizens to vote.

          So it goes like this: the obscenely wealthy and powerful shall have more equal free speech in campaigning while the poor, former felons and others won’t even be allowed to make the choices as to who shall actually win those campaigns and take office.

          • 0 avatar
            bunkie

            In my opinion, *everyone* misses the salient point:

            Where does all that campaign money go? It goes to the very same organizations (television stations, most of which are owned by a very wealthy few)) that purport to “report” on our political process. It’s the single largest conflict of interest outside of congressional lobbying. Yet no one seems to think it’s an issue. I wonder why?

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      Nate, this isn’t a partisan issue. The problem is the bipartisan practice of legislators cramming together lots of changes in the law into huge bills that nobody reads. The school house rock song about how laws are made is a lie. Real bills are huge bloated messes voted on at the last minute by legislators primarily concerned about leaving town.

      • 0 avatar
        jim brewer

        Yep. This looks like an unforced error by several politicians.

        That makes it worse, not better. Most states will circulate a bill like this to the various governmental agencies affected. So they would have been warned. If it was just cobbled on at the last minute, then it was likely some constituent loudly complaining about red tape. Not a good enough excuse.

  • avatar
    krhodes1

    Seems like the solution to this issue is on the demand side. Maine had a huge problem with people stealing copper and other metals and selling them for scrap. And cutting catalytic converters off trucks to sell for scrap. So the state went after the buyers. You now must provide legit ID to sell anything for scrap, and most (if not all) of the buyers will take your picture too. I have a buddy in the business, I set him up with a computer and cloud storage for just this purpose. Everyone who sells to him is on candid camera.

    The fines and other consequences for getting caught buying stolen scrap are harsher than for the original theft, so they have incentive for covering their butts. Solved an awful lot of the problem. Meth heads are not organized enough to cart the stuff out of state, and it is not profitable enough for organized crime to get involved.

    Maine used to only title cars for 15 years. Now it is only ’95 and newer cars.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    “crooked tow truck drivers”

    Are there any other kind?

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Tow truck drivers are about the shadiest “professionals” around, but actual auto theft is rarely done by any group other than juvenile gang members, perhaps with stolen tow trucks. Now tow truck drivers do spend more time in jail than any other “profession” that comes to mind, but it’s for everything under the sun except GTA, aside from very isolated cases.

    • 0 avatar

      ““crooked tow truck drivers”

      Are there any other kind?”

      Are there any honest public employees?

      • 0 avatar
        -Nate

        That’s a B.S. cheap shot ronnie , good for a 12 year old , I’d thought you were better than that .

        yes , just like there are honest republicans , there are honest Tow Truck Drivers and Civil Servants ~ I have done both and don’t lie like the mouth breathers here who complain about the very things they set in motion .

        -Nate

        • 0 avatar

          I was making a point about stereotyping people, and maybe sacred cows as well. I’ve never dealt with a dishonest tow truck driver and as a matter of fact, they’ve been very helpful when I’ve needed them. I’ve even hired drivers with flatbeds to move equipment.

          For the matter, I just asked a question, without taking a position of the honesty of public employees. Of course not all of them are like Lois Lerner.

          When tow truck drivers were mentioned, I thought about the guy that I witnessed taking delivery of a COPO Camaro at the build facility. He was from West Virginia and started with a tow truck and now own a number of automotive related companies: towing, collision, and a junkyard. Has done well enough to be able to afford a $100K toy. Nice guy.

          When I met him, I admired his success from modest beginnings. I didn’t think he must have been crooked.

      • 0 avatar
        mike978

        So are you saying that all soldiers are dishonest, because after all they are public employees too.

      • 0 avatar
        brn

        “Are there any honest public employees?”

        Yes, most are honest.

        Hope that cleared up any confusion.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    The ten years is crazy stupid considering that even in 2012 the average car driving down the road was over ten years old.

    God we vote for these people. This is why I hate seatbelt and helmet laws – let the stupid people remove themselves from the gene pool. They live to grow up, breed, and vote, creating more stupid people.

    Stop interfering with Darwin – this is what you get.

  • avatar
    Ryoku75

    This is good news, less wrecks on craigslist with “No title but you can get one for $3!”.

  • avatar
    Ron B.

    A good friend of mine in 2011 had a pair of vintage Mercedes sitting on a concrete slab at a property he owned. The area got caught in a large flood and the cars went under. Some weeks after the flood went down,the cars were stolen by itinerant scrap dealers. This is right in the middle of a large town but because of the floods the neighbours had gone ,so have these cars which were quite valuable even as parts cars . With the price of scrap being sky high again ,it is time for the thieves to begin their usual snatch and grab . Perhaps a name and shame of the the bigger scrap dealers in that state on the AACA forums may slow them a bit?

  • avatar
    Kendahl

    This is a variation on crooked scrap yards buying stolen metal. Locally, we have a problem with theft of copper pipes and wiring and even manhole covers from the street. The best way to handle this is tighter regulation of scrap yards. Require photo ID and a passport photo of every seller along with a description of the items sold.

  • avatar
    BigDuke6

    I don’t know of many 10 year old cars that would be (should be) considered a “classic”. Classic being the most over-used word in the auto world. Is my ’99 Contour SVT a “classic”? I hardly think so.

  • avatar
    danio3834

    The scrap yards around here don’t require a title to scrap cars, but they will take the VIN and your ID and record the drop off. That’s good enough in my opinion.

    • 0 avatar
      Kevin Jaeger

      That would be good enough if the police actually investigated and prosecuted property crimes of this type. My experience in dealing with the police on property crimes is that they consider their job done when they’ve taken your statement and given you a file number for your insurance claim.

      What these people are doing is still theft and police could prosecute if they were inclined to investigate and prosecute property crimes.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff Waingrow

        Let’s face it. While the most serious crimes such as murder and rape are generally way down over the last decade, more minor crimes such as theft, embezzlement, etc. are rampant. I imagine that this is due largely to drug addicts needing the next fix. I see it in our region where there’s a revolving door for such violations. As an example, with DUI, sometimes it’s the fifth or sixth offense. Same for shoplifting. Filching copper from unoccupied buildings is another common occurrence. These get into the police log, but it would be naive to think that the manpower would ever exist to follow up on these. But it’s a scourge nonetheless.

  • avatar

    There was actually an article last year in the NYT about the same thing happening there, due to a similar law. In NYC, the prefered vehicles to steal and scrap were full-size vans, mostly Econolines, due to their high weight.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/nyregion/for-car-thieves-the-older-and-heavier-the-ride-the-better.html

  • avatar
    chris724

    10 years!? That’s practically new. What was Missouri thinking? Maybe 30 years or older would have worked.

  • avatar
    JimC2

    On the bright side, I guess this means that the meth heads have another source of income other than people’s* air conditioning coils…

    * proper apostrophe ;)

  • avatar
    shaker

    The owners of these cars should carry some sort of insurance that would cover such contingencies – then the insurance companies would lobby for laws to reduce such theft.

    • 0 avatar

      The problem is that a lot of these cars are owned by poor people. One of the reasons people tend to own cars this old is because they don’t want to carry anything more than liability insurance. There are those who will say “Oh well, you have to pay if you want to play.” but I find that ridiculous.

      The idea that the state actually enabled a situation where someone can just roll up and steal something that a working person relies upon on to get to work is a disgusting miscarriage of justice.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        The theft is still illegal. The fact that the rules don’t make it unnecessarily hard to dispose of stolen things doesn’t make it any less of a theft.

        Maybe there should be some active participation from law enforcement here instead of demanding more passive laws that make it unnecessarily difficult for those people who lawfully own old cars, but might not have a title to dispose of the things.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Danio, it’s easy to say there should be more active participation from law enforcement, but this law just gives them one more hurdle to jump over, and no additional resources.

          No one’s going to die, or have his property rights destroyed, if there’s a little more bureaucracy or paperwork involved in junking a car.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Well, this is the state that just passed a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to farm (hey, is the right to sell burgers, or repair TVs next?), so nonsense laws are pretty much the norm.

    Glad I moved out of there a LONG time ago – it’s rapidly becoming North Arkansas.

  • avatar
    -Nate

    Most of the folks I know who live(d) in Missouri , call it ” misery ” and either left or are working hard to leave A.S.A.P. .

    A sad state of affairs indeed .

    It’s kinda rough on the neighborhood but you can always take the tags off and leave it in the street , better yet if you have scheduled street sweeping days , then it’ll vanish pretty quick .

    I’m the guy many folks call to get rid of old klunkers because I make 100 % sure the paper work is followed through on at both ends .

    A few years ago a friend’s old POC rattled it’s way to a junkyard , I made sure I personally filled out and DMV paper works and filed them , kept copies… a month later a nice looking same make & model car was pulled over full of drunken Mexicans , they had slapper plates on it and claimed ” I borrowed it from my girlfriend ” ~ that didn’t fly , when the Auto Theft Detail Detective called her she freaked and called me , one ‘phone call took care of it .

    -Nate

  • avatar
    CaseyLE82

    Both of our cars, our 2005 Ford Taurus and our 2006 Ford Fusion would be either up for grabs at this point or about to be. What a sucky law!

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Schurkey: A few years back, I treated myself to a Challenger 5.7 Hemi rental car for several days when vacationing on...
  • SCE to AUX: I was shocked to see an SSR in the wild the other day. The Hummer EV will do better, but I wouldn’t...
  • SCE to AUX: Yeah, I’ll bet the engineers didn’t think of that. Have you seen the armor plate under the...
  • CaddyDaddy: Ya, but when Dalton got to Missouri and the Roadhouse, the Riv was the one to go with for the Dirty Work.
  • Corey Lewis: You do British condescension so well!

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber