• We have updated to the newest version of the forum. Please let us know if you see any issues. And, yes, we know the shoutbox is gone. We'll see about getting it back if they make a newer version.

Petition to get 35% tint limit in MN!


Minnesota has one of the most restrictive automotive tint laws in the country, and tint tickets start at over $100 dollars.

Ignorance may be no excuse, but many people getting pulled over weren't even aware that they were breaking a law, and are hardly criminals. Such a strict law hurts citizens interested in investing in the benefits window film can provide:

-Adds crash safety from passenger ejection and shattered glass

-Reduces the sun's glare, helping prevent accidents due to excess glare

-Blocks 99.9% of UV radiation

-Keeps vehicles more comfortable by reducing solar heat gain

-Adds privacy for drivers, passengers and belongings

-Discourages smash and grab theft

-Helps protect interiors from fading

-Eliminates the need for mounted shades, which can become dangerous projectiles in the case of an accident

This law has also been devastating to local shops across the state. Why hurt Minnesotan businesses when customers can just go across the border or to a back alley to get a tint job done?

All we want is a 35% limit, which is more in line with 47 other states. 35% is dark enough to allow Minnesotans the full benefits of window film, but light enough that our police officers can feel safe.

Sign the petition, spread the word, read more and donate at fairtintlaw.com, and help us change this outdated law!


Signed and reposting to Facebook. Great find, thanks for bring this to our attention!!


Not to rain on your parade or anything, but I've signed about a dozen of these over the years, and tint laws have still gotten more restrictive. So I'm a little jaded about the ability of online petitions to get anything done, but I'll sign anyway. heh


Not to rain on your parade or anything, but I've signed about a dozen of these over the years, and tint laws have still gotten more restrictive. So I'm a little jaded about the ability of online petitions to get anything done, but I'll sign anyway. heh
Forget petitions we need to stage a riot


I've already have a response from my state senator saying she will look into this if shes reelected. Never had that before from the petetions I've signed.


Keep in mind that just recently they tightened the law to make it illegal for tint installers to apply anything darker than 50% without a prescription...before, the liability was only on the vehicle owner. And while our law may seem restrictive at 50%, California doesn't allow ANY tint on the front windows. Sorry to piss in your Cheerios, but the precent has already been set that tint laws are only going to be made tighter.


Sorry to piss in your Cheerios, but the precent has already been set that tint laws are only going to be made tighter.
Good thing I don't eat Cheerios! HA!

I just figure it never hearts to try. There is no reason to just settle for something because you think it can never change.


Owl Exterminator!!
I don't understand the big fuss anyways. If having dark windows is really that important to people, get a script or move. I dunno.
When did they add/amend the law to make it illegal for shops to tint darker?

Personally, I have no problem with the state keeping the 50% tint, but I disagree with them taking it out on shops. Shops are making money and customers are getting what they want. Whether the cops want to pull the offenders over and issue tickets, that's up to the cop. I have had 35% tint on my Cobalt since a month after I bought the car...so nearly 5 years now. I have never been harassed over the tint because I believe most cops don't care in the area I live/work/travel. The few times I've been pulled over for other things, they have never said anything about tint. I'll bet if I had 30% or 20% or darker, they may have said something to me or issued a ticket. I know in the future if the shops can't tint darker than 50% here, I will take my business somewhere where they can or I will see if the person that did my tint will do it on the side for future vehicles. I will probably go darker on the next vehicle I own.

So if anything, I would petition to change that back to the drivers only. Look at it this way...right now if they can only tint 50%, shops are getting less business which in turn means the state is making less on tax. Shops aren't going to violate the law so the state won't make money from them (at least not very often). As for people doing it themselves or outside of a shop, that may happen more in which case the state is losing out on the sales tax. They can still make revenue from issuing tickets for the illegal tint, but there probably won't be as many people in the long run going darker than 50%.

I see that as a negative impact on the state more than anything.

Correct me if I'm wrong. That's my opinion.
Last edited:
I can't even remember the guys name that did my tint...awesome job though...Street Scenes back when it was under old ownership...is he the one that owns Tint Pros now or is that someone else?
Last edited:


IIRC they changed the law just last year. Since this is a public forum I won't name names, but when I got the Demio tinted last spring (at 40%), my choices were to pay cash, or pay by credit card but show a valid prescription. I'm sure that not all shops are willing to do this, however, and there's a very real possibility that if they wanted to, the police could easily run an undercover operation to figure out which shops are willing to break the law.

Is it stupid to punish the shops? Depends on who you ask. It's a problem that law enforcement, and lawmakers, feel is an important issue, so in a way you could compare it to drug laws. Not punishing the shops would be akin to not punishing drug dealers, only drug users. (Is dark tint as bad as drugs? No, but history has shown that when law enforcement asks for something to make their jobs easier/more efficient, they tend to get it.)

And for the record, I do indeed have a valid prescription for my tint, and yes, it does actually have a medical benefit to me, so I guess I have a bit of a unique opinion/perspective into the issue.
I understand your comparison of the tint vs drugs...I mean yes, why would you only punish a drug user and not a dealer/distributor, but at the same time I don't think it's valid to compare to the two. You've got completely different arguments in my mind for the two. I do understand that cops get what they want from officials, but whether or not it makes their job more efficient/easier is also debatable.

I'm sure the valid argument for cops are as follows: At night someone with very dark tint can not see that well...perhaps they don't see someone walking or notice lights (emergency vehicle or traffic lights or what have you). Perhaps cops pull someone over for something...they may be more apprehensive walking up to a car that has dark tint because they can't see someone inside and don't know what they're going to do.

Again, I would like to see statistics to make valid arguments. Out of how many nighttime hit and runs was it due to tint vs drunk/high/not paying attention/etc. How many cops have been shot or attacked by someone with tinted windows vs non-tinted or legally tinted windows.

It's all a debate. I still stand my ground on the fact that shops should be allowed to get their business legally while installing whatever tint the customer wants. In this case, I can't compare it to drugs because I believe it's all in the consumers choices...they should be held liable and not the shops. In the case of drugs, yes hold all parties accountable.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm again stating my opinions.

Now I don't know if I could get a prescription for my tint, but I do know that the sun bothers me when driving (both glare and physically hurts my eyes...I'm very sensitive to light) and that was part of the reason in getting tint along with the fact it does make the car look nicer and keep it cooler.

How hard is it to get a prescription? Can you just ask for one or is there a way they can check to see if you need one? I'm not familiar with that. Also, what are the limits when you have a prescription? I'm not saying I will go try to get one to be able to get darker tint, but I would like to know.


My understanding is that the reason for the tint law at all is simply due to police officers not being able to see inside the car. I don't think I've ever read a single argument about dark tint being less safe from a driving standpoint (which is somewhat true, but only of really dark tint...the reduction in glare makes lighter tints *more* safe IMO).

As to getting a prescription, it's something you and your eye doctor need to discuss. I've had luck in that my eye doctor understands my particular eye condition pretty well (not all of them do) and believes me when I express that the tint is beneficial (which it is). I've heard firsthand reports of some eye doctors outright refusing to write tint prescriptions due to liability issues, so YMMV.

As for the prescription itself, there are two requirements:

1. It has to list the specific percentage of tint that's prescribed, e.g. "Recommend 35% automotive window tint due to [insert medical condition here]." Statements like "Recommend automotive window tint" won't fly. Obviously, if you get prescribed 35% but go lighter (say, 40%) you're OK.
2. It has to have an expiration date of no later than 2 years from when it was written (just like normal eyeglass prescriptions).

And this isn't directed specifically at you Mike, but I also need to make the statement that people should not come up with bullshit medical issues to cheat their way to a prescription. If someone has a legitimate condition that darker-than-50% tint would help with, then I'm all for getting a prescription. But if everyone cheated, then there's a real chance that they'll remove the prescription clause from the law, in which case those who really do benefit from their prescription would get screwed over.
Thanks for the info. I think personally, I will continue to just take my chances with my 35% tint on this car, as like I said, it's been 5 years and not once have I been questioned. And more of a chance on the next car as I think I'll drop to 30%. I have friends with 20% and for me that's too dark. I have not only trouble with sunlight, but my night vision has gotten worse and I'm glad I don't have to drive at night anymore (as in working at night while driving). Even though it isn't much of a difference I like the 30%.

Going back to the topic...I don't foresee anything coming of petitions as always. Good luck with the petition, but don't be surprised when nothing comes of it.


is the word, beotch
I signed one of these last year and had a conversation with my state representative that lasted through several emails and he seemed to genuinely listen....not that it mattered. My take on this is that window tint is such a non-issue for politicians that it'll never come to anything until the day comes when law enforcement has to abide by the same laws they seek to impose on the "public." I see police vehicles with darkly-tinted windows driving around on my way home from work every single week, so if it's good enough for them it ought to be good enough for the rest of us.
Well that's also a valid point and brings up yet another. What about vehicles that come from the factory with darker (around 20-30% tint...wagons, trucks, SUV's that have all but the front two windows tinted).

Over 50% of the police vehicles are K9 units, but there are more than a few that are not. And they have very dark tint (20% or darker).