D
Picklz
SUDO Make me a SAMCH
No vehicles come from the factory (new) with illegal tint that I know of. Vans/trucks/SUV's can have any % behind the driver legally, just the front two have to be 50% or lighter.
Cars are limited to 50% or lighter on all windows.
I agree Pete, it's freakin LAME MN is spending time/money/resources to legislate how dark someone's windows can be, I understand the windshield but other than that who freakin cares. Like the article says we are one of the few states that are so strict on tint, pisses me off.
Cars are limited to 50% or lighter on all windows.
I agree Pete, it's freakin LAME MN is spending time/money/resources to legislate how dark someone's windows can be, I understand the windshield but other than that who freakin cares. Like the article says we are one of the few states that are so strict on tint, pisses me off.
D
DrWebster
Guest
That actually raises an interesting question...current law says it's only illegal to have dark tint on your car unless you have a prescription. This new law would make it illegal for tint installers to even offer dark tint. So what about people with prescriptions? I can see three possibilities:
1. The prescription clause stays in place, and if you need otherwise illegal tint installed, you have to get it done in another state.
2. The prescription clause stays in place, and tint installers will be given an exception to install otherwise illegal tint for those holding a prescription.
3. The prescription clause gets yanked entirely; if you need otherwise illegal tint to be able to drive, well, you ain't gonna be driving no more.
Now here's the kicker -- in any scenario, if it's illegal to even offer to install dark tint (current law places the burden on the owner of the car, not the tint installer; this new law places it on both), how many tint installers do you think will stay in business? Nobody's gonna just settle for 50%, and the only other vehicles that can legally have dark tint are vans/SUVs and limos (both of which usually come with dark tint from the factory).
Another interesting thing is that there was originally language in the bill that would have made it illegal for people to even try to sell a car in Minnesota with illegal tint. Not sure who prompted getting that part removed, but I wouldn't be surprised if the auto dealers lobbied against it.
Picklz
SUDO Make me a SAMCH
True Colin, many of the tint shops will close up if this passes, some will stay around as there are people who just do 50%, and vehicles that need darker tint on the back / new tint, etc.
What I am interested in - it says it will be a misdemeanor to install or sell illegal tint. So how would they know if it was applied before or after the law went into affect? I could say I had it applied last year, therefore I would just be in violation of the fine for having it rather than the more severe penalty of installing it, no?
What I am interested in - it says it will be a misdemeanor to install or sell illegal tint. So how would they know if it was applied before or after the law went into affect? I could say I had it applied last year, therefore I would just be in violation of the fine for having it rather than the more severe penalty of installing it, no?
Last edited:
D
DrWebster
Guest
The way I interpret the "misdemeanor to install or sell" part is that it's against the tint shop owners and not retroactive. So basically, starting the date the law goes into effect, an undercover cop could go into a tint shop, see if the shop sells darker than 50% tint, and if they do, they're busted.
With these proposed changes, there's really nothing different as far as vehicle owners are concerned. This law simply targets the "source" of the illegal tint, not just the end users.
With these proposed changes, there's really nothing different as far as vehicle owners are concerned. This law simply targets the "source" of the illegal tint, not just the end users.
Picklz
SUDO Make me a SAMCH
Install means just that, install. So it would be a misdemeanor for an individual to install (or buy even?) 20% tint after the law passes...how do they know when it was installed?
Perhaps buy a couple rolls of 20% now so you can prove you purchased it before it was against the law, and say you installed it yourself, back then, when it was still legal. Might be a way to get around the law (if you really can do it yourself or you find someone to do it under the table) for applications after the law passes, so long as the vehicle was around before the law goes into effect.
Perhaps buy a couple rolls of 20% now so you can prove you purchased it before it was against the law, and say you installed it yourself, back then, when it was still legal. Might be a way to get around the law (if you really can do it yourself or you find someone to do it under the table) for applications after the law passes, so long as the vehicle was around before the law goes into effect.
Workdawg
NARWHAL
I interpretted the law in the same way as Colin. The act of installing is where the crime is, not having it installed on your car (though it is also). I think(hope) they'd have to see you install the tint, or the intent to do so.
That said, the burden of proof is on the state to prove that we installed illegal tint on the car after it was made illegal. I can't see this being a retroactive thing.
That said, the burden of proof is on the state to prove that we installed illegal tint on the car after it was made illegal. I can't see this being a retroactive thing.
mndsm
I'M OFFENDED!
This makes me wonder if my prescription, which is dated prior to this proposed law, would get me in on a grandfather clause? I mean, airbags were required by law..... whenever. That does not however, make it illegal for me to drive a car manufactured prior to that dat that does not have them. Same with stability control/seatbelts/whatever. My shits was legal when it was legal to do what I did.
S
spek1098
Guest
Here's a way around it, just install 2 layers of 50%, that should put you at about 20% with the couple percent tint windows come stock.
1Kris06
MAD LIGHTS YO
a) doubling up tint never works out that well
b) the light sensors used by cops to determine what % your tint is will still show that you have illegal tint.
even if a car window had no tint what so ever, by the time the light beam from the machine registers. it will have been reduced to roughly 25%.
S
spek1098
Guest
Never said it was a good idea, and it’s just a technicality to get around the changes they are proposing, cause they would only be installing 50% tint, just twice.
ZoomZoom Diva
New Member
Agreed.
This is just another ridiculous way that our government seems to think they can live our lives better than we can live our own lives. There are many more important things to spend legislative time on than this.
P
pingwin77
Guest
No kidding. I do not even have tint and highly doubt I ever will but this still pisses me off. I clicked on the linky in the top and sent messages to the 2 representatives mentioned in the article expressing my concern that our tax dollars are being spent on something and petty as window tint compares to the hundreds of other things that are wrong.
