MN Window Tint Laws

[ZoomZoom Diva]

Jay hits on a real problem... they really need to take time to review and rewrite many of our laws that have become a hodgepodge of edits over the years. I also see no logical reason why the law should differ on one type of vehicle versus another, as the risk to police or the general public is no different whether the vehicle is a van or a sedan... if anything, the van is a greater risk due to the larger size and capacity.

Jesse Ventura had it right when he advocated using the off year in sessions to repeal and fix laws rather than constantly making new ones.

 

[Ocoro]

Many don't agree with this, but I firmly believe the law is discriminating against those who choose to buy certain type of vehicle. Which in turn is against the law.

 

[Schmitty]

Many don't agree with this, but I firmly believe the law is discriminating against those who choose to buy certain type of vehicle. Which in turn is against the law.

Actually, that is incorrect. law is allowed to discriminate against choices. It cannot discriminate against against against race, sex, color or creed.

 

[ZoomZoom Diva]

Ocoro, I agree that it is not equal treatment under the law, and the law should be rewritten to make the treatment equal. However, one would be hard pressed to make a case based on a voluntary purchase decision for a court to strike down such a law.

Schmitty, while the law is technically allowed to discriminate based on choices, it is unethical for it to.

 

[Schmitty]

I think we may be internalizing the affect of the law. The law is not made to negate a drivers rights, it is to classify vehicles and how they may or not be modified.

We seem to take it as, "I drive a car, MN law hates me and won't let me have tint!!!"

When in acctuality it is "Certain vehicles may have different tint, based on the design and use of the vehicle."

All that being said, I subscribe to there can't be a victimles crime. So eff them. LOL.

 

[ZoomZoom Diva]

However, such classifications are often unnecessary and artificial based on preconceived notions rather than a factual need for such classifications... and leads to treating people differently for no good reason. The law should be kept as simple and universal as absolutely possible.

 

[Ocoro]

Ocoro, I agree that it is not equal treatment under the law, and the law should be rewritten to make the treatment equal. However, one would be hard pressed to make a case based on a voluntary purchase decision for a court to strike down such a law.

Schmitty, while the law is technically allowed to discriminate based on choices, it is unethical for it to.

I think we may be internalizing the affect of the law. The law is not made to negate a drivers rights, it is to classify vehicles and how they may or not be modified.

We seem to take it as, "I drive a car, MN law hates me and won't let me have tint!!!"

When in acctuality it is "Certain vehicles may have different tint, based on the design and use of the vehicle."

All that being said, I subscribe to there can't be a victimles crime. So eff them. LOL.

These 2 posts make loads of sense to me. The funny thing here, is that I don't have tint (yet). In the end I might go 35%.

I wonder if there is a job for Auditing Laws.

 

[1Kris06]

These 2 posts make loads of sense to me. The funny thing here, is that I don't have tint (yet). In the end I might go 35%.

I wonder if there is a job for Auditing Laws.

if there isn't, there should be. there are tons of laws that are outdated yet still on the books but not enforced becasue they are outdated and don't make sense anymore. if we require that all windows in a vehicle be rolled down during a traffic stop. then the tint law should allow us to go darker, at least down to 35%. in reality, what does 50% do? block out a little heat, if that. its a waste of money to get anything above 40%, because its not doing anything.

 

[ZoomZoom Diva]

if there isn't, there should be. there are tons of laws that are outdated yet still on the books but not enforced becasue they are outdated and don't make sense anymore. if we require that all windows in a vehicle be rolled down during a traffic stop. then the tint law should allow us to go darker, at least down to 35%. in reality, what does 50% do? block out a little heat, if that. its a waste of money to get anything above 40%, because its not doing anything.

Agreed. I would also be in favor of a "roll windows down" statute.

 

[YSOSLO]

It's a creative solution, but pretty tough to enforce....especially since a lot of cops don't necessarily want people rolling down their windows because it could look just like a bunch of gang-bangers grabbing weapons from under their seats or something, and others would complain that rolling down the windows wastes heat in the Winter or would cause undue hardship for babies on-board...and then people would gripe about people with kids getting preferential treatment etc....lol

 

[Workdawg]

Well, then they shouldn't have done something to deserve to be pulled over.

 

[darkdan]

As a window tinter, I'll chime in on this thread even though it's old.

You can pretend you car is a truck or SUV all you want because it might meet some of the criteria in the state's definition, but it won't help.

If the door jam sticker (has your VIN and stuff on it) says "Passenger" then it's a car and you have to obey the car window tinting limit (50% net, nothing on the windshield). How they managed to get the PT Cruiser defined as an MPV is beyond my understanding. "Flat cargo area"? LOL.

I know, it sucks. But with the correct legal window tint you can still block up to 55% of heat, 99% of UV light (less fading and less skin cancer), and still add some flavor to how the vehicle looks.

 

[mndsm]

OR- pull off the script trick. Worked for me!

 

[darkdan]

Yeah I saw that. I was shocked and impressed. I wrote in that thread too about having to renew the script, for it to be valid it has to state how dark the tint can be, and I believe there is some paper work with the state that has to be done.

But if it worked once without doing all that, it might work again. However, if you get a cop and/or judge that actually cares you might still be in trouble.

 

[Workdawg]

As a window tinter, I'll chime in on this thread even though it's old.

You can pretend you car is a truck or SUV all you want because it might meet some of the criteria in the state's definition, but it won't help.

If the door jam sticker (has your VIN and stuff on it) says "Passenger" then it's a car and you have to obey the car window tinting limit (50% net, nothing on the windshield). How they managed to get the PT Cruiser defined as an MPV is beyond my understanding. "Flat cargo area"? LOL.

I know, it sucks. But with the correct legal window tint you can still block up to 55% of heat, 99% of UV light (less fading and less skin cancer), and still add some flavor to how the vehicle looks.

No offense, but just because you tint windows doesn't mean you know the laws better than anyone else (Unless you are a lawyer or judge on the side). I am not a lawyer either... but I don't claim have a better understanding than anyone else. I was just quoting the word of the law. No where in the law does it mention actual manufacturer vehicle classification or what it says on your door jamb sticker. It's true that, in most cases, it probably wouldn't be worth going to court over, but I was putting the info out there anyways.

 

[darkdan]

None taken, but it's my job to understand the window film law.

And the final word on how a vehicle is classified comes down to it's federal definition and what the manufacturer puts on that sticker.

 

[ZoomZoom Diva]

Sounds like case law has established an interpretation very different than the wording and direct context of the state statute.

 

[Picklz]

PT Cruiser has removable rear seats and is much closer to a van than our Mazda3's / Speed3's are which probably contributes to it being classified that way legally.

I suspect James is right in that regardless of how the law reads word for word that the Judge is going to take the legal classification of the vehicle. Not that it really matters anyway nobody here is going to do 50% front and darker on the rear (I suspect).

 

[VTEC8YA]

So your saying this is illegal?

LOL!!!!

 

[Picklz]

I think you should drive that around up here and we should place bets on how many hours of driving before you get pulled over lol. That said DO WANT windshield tint!