Petition to get 35% tint limit in MN!

Discussion in 'Appearance and Body Modification' started by million, Jun 28, 2012.

  1. mndsm

    mndsm I'M OFFENDED!

    According to the Eden Prairie police, even their surveillance vehicles don't have 20% tint.
     
  2. dmention7

    dmention7 Hater

    I think the general justification (and there is probably some validity to it) is that the tint that comes on vehicles from the factory can be guaranteed to meet some kind of DOT and/or IIHS regulations regarding the performance and installation of the tinting. Generally it's not a film like a shop would apply. I am not knowledgeable of those specs, so I don't know if it would be feasible or not to have an aftermarket film that meets the same criteria.
     
  3. escort1991

    escort1991 New Member

    From speaking with numerous people over the years on this issue, there has been quite a bit of talk on officer safety when approaching a vehicle. I can understand that, but like we talked about in the chatbox yesterday, there are quite a few more things in a vehicle that obstruct the view of the occupants in the car than window tint like doors and such. I know when getting pulled over, I have my window rolled down and my license/insurance already hanging out of the window, but there are probably many that don't. In my viewpoint, it's a sticky situation, but if they would drop it down to 35% and still not allow tint shops to go darker, it would keep more tinting business in MN as many people have been going to WI to get the windows tinted to 35-40%.


    For those of you that are wondering, here is the law:

    Statute 169.71

    169.71 WINDSHIELD.

    Subdivision 1.Prohibitions generally; exceptions. (a) A person shall not drive or operate any motor vehicle with:
    (1) a windshield cracked or discolored to an extent to limit or obstruct proper vision;

    (2) any objects suspended between the driver and the windshield, other than:

    (i) sun visors;

    (ii) rearview mirrors;

    (iii) driver feedback and safety-monitoring equipment when mounted immediately behind, slightly above, or slightly below the rearview mirror;

    (iv) global positioning systems or navigation systems when mounted or located near the bottommost portion of the windshield; and

    (v) electronic toll collection devices; or

    (3) any sign, poster, or other nontransparent material upon the front windshield, sidewings, or side or rear windows of the vehicle, other than a certificate or other paper required to be so displayed by law or authorized by the state director of the Division of Emergency Management or the commissioner of public safety.

    (b) Paragraph (a), clauses (2) and (3), do not apply to law enforcement vehicles.

    (c) Paragraph (a), clause (2), does not apply to authorized emergency vehicles.

    Subd. 2.Windshield wiper. The windshield on every motor vehicle shall be equipped with a device for cleaning rain, snow or other moisture from the windshield, which device shall be so constructed as to be controlled or operated by the driver of the vehicle.
    Subd. 3.Defrosting requirement. No person shall drive any motor vehicle with the windshield or front side windows covered with steam or frost to such an extent as to prevent proper vision.
    Subd. 4.Glazing material; prohibitions and exceptions. (a) No person shall drive or operate any motor vehicle required to be registered in the state of Minnesota upon any street or highway under the following conditions:
    (1) when the windshield is composed of, covered by, or treated with any material which has the effect of making the windshield more reflective or in any other way reducing light transmittance through the windshield;

    (2) when any window on the vehicle is composed of, covered by, or treated with any material that has a highly reflective or mirrored appearance;

    (3) when any side window or rear window is composed of or treated with any material so as to obstruct or substantially reduce the driver's clear view through the window or has a light transmittance of less than 50 percent plus or minus three percent in the visible light range or a luminous reflectance of more than 20 percent plus or minus three percent; or

    (4) when any material has been applied after August 1, 1985, to any motor vehicle window without an accompanying permanent marking which indicates the percent of transmittance and the percent of reflectance afforded by the material. The marking must be in a manner so as not to obscure vision and be readable when installed on the vehicle.

    (b) This subdivision does not apply to glazing materials which:

    (1) have not been modified since the original installation, nor to original replacement windows and windshields, that were originally installed or replaced in conformance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205;

    (2) are required to satisfy prescription or medical needs of the driver of the vehicle or a passenger if:

    (i) the driver or passenger is in possession of the prescription or a physician's statement of medical need;

    (ii) the prescription or statement specifically states the minimum percentage that light transmittance may be reduced to satisfy the prescription or medical needs of the patient; and

    (iii) the prescription or statement contains an expiration date, which must be no more than two years after the date the prescription or statement was issued; or

    (3) are applied to:

    (i) the rear windows of a pickup truck as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 26;

    (ii) the rear windows or the side windows on either side behind the driver's seat of a van as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 40;

    (iii) the side and rear windows of a vehicle used to transport human remains by a funeral establishment holding a license under section 149A.50;

    (iv) the side and rear windows of a limousine as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 15; or

    (v) the rear and side windows of a police vehicle.

    Subd. 5.Glazing material; prohibitions on sale. (a) No person shall sell or offer for sale or use on any motor vehicle, windows or windshields that are composed of, covered by, or treated with material that fails to comply with the provisions of subdivision 4. No person shall apply or offer to apply, as part of a business transaction, material to motor vehicle windows or windshields that fails to comply with the provisions of subdivision 4.
    (b) Violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor.

    (c) This subdivision does not apply to sale or offers for sale of a motor vehicle containing windows or windshields composed of, covered by, or treated with material that fails to comply with the provisions of subdivision 4.
     
  4. spek1098

    spek1098 Guest

    I didn't write an email, signing this petition automaticly generated an email and sent it to her.

    Things just don't inevitably happen, we the electorate have the power to move the government as long as you can get the right people on board with strong ideas and have solid counter arguments to those who oppose our ideas. It would be interesting to learn how the original tint law and the latest bill holding installers accountable came about, what group and what politician supported it and develop some good counter arguments to their justifications for it. We wouldn’t have to fight the part holding installers responsible, just make it legal for them to install 35% and illegal to install any darker. With that as a goal, it may be possible to bring that backers of the latest bill on board with this idea if we understand there stances on these issues.
     
  5. dmention7

    dmention7 Hater

    Let me play the part of the cynic here.

    "Thousands of Minnesotans are struggling with layoffs, unemployment, and foreclosures threatening to ruin their chance at the American dream. Meanwhile, what is Representative ____ spending her time on? Making it easier for criminals to cause harm to our hard-working police officers. Stand up for our brave men and women in uniform; don't vote for _____ and her crusade to make our roads more dangerous."

    Just sayin.
     
  6. escort1991

    escort1991 New Member

    There has been no proof that darker tint makes our roads and our officers any less safe.

    Representatives need to look at how we can preserve the jobs and businesses we have here to keep funds rolling in to keep paying for the people who are unemployed. If there is a small tweak to a law, like window tint from 50% to 35%, to keep business in MN, it NEEDS to be looked at and considered. It: preserves current jobs; it can create jobs; increase revenue from sales tax from increased business and increased "on the books" sales. If the law would be changed from 50% to 35%, it would create an influx of MN licensed cars that have been tinted with 50% for years to have tint removed and new tint reapplied, creating even more business and more sales tax.

    35% can still be lit up enough by a police take down light and the occupants of the vehicle can still be seen.
     
  7. dmention7

    dmention7 Hater

    That wasn't my opinion, just my cynical side pointing out one reason why I don't think a looser tint law will be coming our way anytime soon. Reason, logic, and rational discourse only get you so far in politics. We still can't buy alcohol on sundays here because anyone who tried to repeal blue laws would be crucified as someone who is attacking religion and promoting drunkeness. Never mind the alcohol taxes that are either not collected or lost to Wisconsin (to name one affected business sector).
     
  8. DrWebster

    DrWebster Guest

    +1
     
  9. 1Kris06

    1Kris06 MAD LIGHTS YO

    I'll stick to my $120 yr/tax (via tint tickets), although less is always preferred.
     
  10. 007CobaltLS

    007CobaltLS Member

    New idea...lets make ALL tint/film illegal...cops, limos, everything...lol. (Sarcasm)

    Escort...as you do, if/when pulled over, I usually have my stuff ready or at least have my wallet out of my pocket and in my hand ready to pull the stuff out of...one hand on the window the other usually on top of the wheel where the officer can see it and hopefully understand I'm not trying to pose a threat. You also make valid points like I was trying to make about the state receiving more revenue in the long run. And in my mind, I would gladly pay a shop their cost plus state taxes to have tint applied...what I'm not for is raising sales tax to build a fucking stadium for a team that can't win shit and that I don't care about nor do I want to "opt-into" (off topic so I will not talk about that any more).

    As for the statutes...I know they exist, I'm wondering WHY they exclude cop cars (allow them to have darker tint...K9 units I understand so that the animals are cooler and people don't rile them up on purpose...that's understandable, but other official vehicles have tint and there is no reason/need for it). And of course I mean cars, not SUV's and trucks that come with the factory stuff.

    I also see the point of trying to allow the shops to market darker tint to a degree and making even darker illegal still. I'm not going to say anything for or against it because I've spoken my opinion and have nothing else to say.

    It's just too bad that more cars aren't offered the windows tinted from the factory...that would solve a few problems (for some people)...darker than I would prefer and front windows wouldn't be tinted, but still, would be nice to see auto manufacturer's offer it on more vehicles. Then it's totally legit being from the factory and having the permanent markings of transmittance...no this would not help local business, but whatever. Most people aren't interested in anything more than having darker tint...most could care less about reasons for anything and just want their car to look cool.
     
  11. Workdawg

    Workdawg NARWHAL

    Geeze, this has gone kinda crazy. People around here have heard my "van argument" so I'll spare everyone that BS... and just toss out my opinion.

    Tint laws are BS. Protecting the cops... blah blah. Am I really more dangerous because I have tint? Fuck no. People who are intending to hurt cops would do so if they had tint or not. If you have so much to lose that you would risk hiding in a tinted vehicle and shooting a cop, I would think you would drive an SUV on which it is legal to go as dark as you want on the back windows. So it's fucking dumb.

    On one side of it is personal freedom and right to privacy. If their argument is for the protection of cops, then they should outlaw blinds/window coverings in houses as well. That's a bit of a stretch, but hey. Should I have the right to privacy in my own car, on a public street, I dunno. Certainly tint would help with the privacy. But why should the rest of the public be punished for the .01% who are using it to hide illicit activities? No. That's like saying we should outlaw guns because criminals use them to shoot people. Tint doesn't cause crime, criminals cause crime. If the facts presented are correct that there is no shown correlation between violence and tint, then fuck that noise.

    I've been pulled over a few times and my process is always the following:

    Roll down windows
    Turn on interior lights
    Puts hands on steering wheel
    Wait for cop
    ...
    Tell him everything I'm doing

    My logic is that the less commotion in the vehicle after I've been pulled over, the better. If I'm fishing for my wallet or insurance papers, the cop doesn't know for sure if I'm really doing that or looking for a gun/stashing my drugs. I do as little as possible... and EVERYTHING I do I tell the cop about. I make very deliberate and exaggerated actions to try and make them feel safe. I try to keep my hands as visible as possible at all times.

    On the political side of the spectrum... I have no idea. About all I know is that politics in this country is FUBAR.
     
  12. 007CobaltLS

    007CobaltLS Member

    Well put.
     
  13. spek1098

    spek1098 Guest

    Very well put. There are a certain number of evil people out there who are going to do evil things window tint or not.

    Using cynicism to justify inaction and acceptance of the status quo is a cop-out. The reason the liquor laws are the way they are is because no one has made it their purpose to change that law. Laws just don't magically change simply because they're illogical or irrational. Some group of people must make it their cause and work the system to change laws. If everyone is just going to throw up their hands and give up, is it no surprise nothing changes??

    The changes to the law would not be very complicated so to having a bill crafted would take very little effort. There are hundreds of bills voted on by our legislature in every session. Sorry Jay, your cyclical argument falls flat on its face.
     
  14. dmention7

    dmention7 Hater

    Like I said, not an opinion or an argument toward action or inaction on this particular front, just stating a reality. You say the laws are there because nobody has made it their purpose to change the law--I explained WHY nobody has made it their purpose. Though, it is my opinion that in general efforts are better spent trying to address the root cause of public misinformation and apathy, rather than struggling against the symptoms that are silly laws.
     
  15. Workdawg

    Workdawg NARWHAL

    lol... I'm glad you guys liked my alcohol fueled rant.
     
  16. JW_SPEED3

    JW_SPEED3 New Member

    Signed and Shared on FB. I have signed a lot of these in the past, even got an email from some legislator saying it would be to difficult to change this law since it would be battling law enforcement and they say it's for their safety. But whatever, I'll sign it again and again since I tint all my vehicles and pay the stupid fines when i get pulled over. I think 35 or even 30% should be legal. 50% is worthless.
     

Share This Page