https://www.carscoops.com/2026/04/mi...ssic-car-bill/

 

I guess Somalis don't drive classic cars?

 

From the article:

"Under the bill, any vehicle registered with Minnesota’s collector, classic, pioneer, street rod, or military vehicle plates could only be driven for “collector” purposes."

I'm not saying I like it but the I think many states have restrictions on usage if you register with "antique", "collector", or "classic" plates.


Idaho, for example"

"Any motor vehicle or motorcycle which qualifies as an "Idaho Classic" may only be used for exhibits, parades, tours, club activities and such occasional use as is necessary for operation and maintenance of the vehicle. I.C. § 49-406A "

Obviously this has everything to do with revenue. If you get the antique plates you pay a smaller fee. If you have daily driver plates you pay a bigger fee.

OTOH, Texas apparently allows unlimited use for cars "classic" plates but limited use on cars with "antique" plates"

Anyhow, the Minnesota thing is still just a proposed law at this point. We'll see if it passes.

This might be helpful as it shows state-by-state restrictions but I can't vouch for accuracy

https://streetlegalhookup.com/state-...stration-guide

Cheers
DD

 

Similar schemes in place down here in Australia. State by state conditions, some better than others. Use restricted to club sanctioned events in some states while in my own state use is limited only by number of days (45 or 90 day per year permits) with no other conditions. Much cheaper registration and insurance cost and generally well received. Full cost registration is still available at regular cost for these vehicles.

 

This Minnesota thing has blown up out of all proportion. It's on almost all of my usual car-related sites.

Most states have had the same or similar laws for umpteen years and nobody seemed to object. People welcomed the the opportunity for lower registration costs. Often, much lower. Now, all of the sudden, it's a massive outrage.

A good debate can be had as to whether the restrictions need to exist in the first place. But why are people who accepted the restrictions for years in other states now acting as though Minnesota as some sort of rogue player?

Good grief.

Cheers
DD

 

No driving at night?

No driving during the week?

The state of Arizona imposes no driving restrictions, but does require classic car ins for classic registration, there is no reduced reg fee, but it does eliminate emissions inspections.

You need CC ins to get CC reg in AZ, those Ins co do have some restriction such as no DD to work/school, etc. You are allowed pelasure drives, any day, any time.

Doug

 

The elimination of emissions inspections is certainly a "plus". I'm lucky in that regard: no testing at all where I'm located in Oregon :-).

Anyhow.....

I'm sure we could go state-by-state and pick out the best and worst for those who register their car as a classic. If the proposed legislation passes then Minnesota may the worst. I dunno. I haven't dug into the details.

An option for any of us, including Minnesotans, is to register and insure your car normally and avoid the restrictions.

I remain flummoxed at the huge outrage over Minnesota when these types of laws have been in existence....and apparently accepted with little or no complaint.... in many other places for a long time.

Cheers
DD

 

Register your car normally: insurance goes through the roof. Adding the XJS to my classic car ins policy was $72/year, full coverage, agreed value of $12K. How much is a "normal" ins policy? Several hundred, maybe over $1K/year?

Insure your car normally:, any normal insurance policy will compensate you for maybe a few thousand dollars in the event of total loss, as its a ~40 YO car and depreciated out.

So, If this crap legislation passes in MN, people there will be heavily restricted, or have to pay lots of extra $$ to drive their cars legally during teh week or at night.

IMO, this legislation is temper tantrum imposed by people unhappy with people who have classic cars in general, and/or rebellion against the roll back of 'green" mandates by the govt.

I don't live in MN, but stuff like this spreads, and could be adopted in other states.

Doug

 

Damn glad I don't, and never will live in Somalia---EEERRRR I mean Minnesota.

Jack

 

Regular insurance and registration is a lot more expensive, yes. Still, it remains an option if the proposed bill passes and you want unrestricted driving.

Personally I have my XJ6 and my TR6 under normal registration but insured under agreed value "classic" insurance. Works for me.



Well the weekday and daytime requirements are stupid and over the top, I agree. The rest of the wording is the same as found in most other states:

Subd. 5. new text end

new text beginVehicle operation. new text end

new text beginA person may operate a vehicle registered in the collector
class under subdivision 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, or 1h, or under section 168.105, solely as a collector's
item and not for general transportation purposes. Operation as a collector's item includes:
(1) transportation for a collector vehicle club activity, exhibition, tour, parade, or similar
use; and (2) operation on Saturday and Sunday from sunrise to sunset.




Hard to say. The proposal was introduced by first-time representative Meg Luger-Nikolai. A three minute Google didn't reveal much of anything about her agenda. The bill has no co-sponsors. I've seen nothing (not yet, at least) to indicate she wrote the bill in response to any public outcries or demands, nor in response to an anti-classic-car movement. So I can't tell what axe she has to grind here.

My guess is that the bill will flop. We'll just have to wait and watch.

Cheers
DD

 

Back c.2000 ish, when AZ was contemplating allowing classic cars special registration, which included removing smog requirements for classic cars, i called my local AZ state rep, he was elected as D, but he was closet communist (I figured out from prior things he was championing)...

Anyway, we had this discussion, and I brought up that the cost to make 20 year old cars that were rarely driven meet smog requirement when many of those smog parts simply weren't available, or had gotten very expensive, why should i have to pay to replace a $4000 factory OEM equipment compliant muffler (Ferrari), on a rarely driven car to meet the compliant equipment portion of the law when it could be replaced a $400 aftermarket muffler system, his answer was that "it isn't fair" that someone with a specialty vehicle should get special treatment when someone else driving a Nissan Sentra didn't get an exemption; the argument that a Nissan muffler was a $100 vs a $4K muffler, had no sway on him, other than if I owned a Ferrari, i should just pay up. I said it wasn't fair to me, but that had no bearing to him. My take was he had some sort of envy that i had a car that he didn't, it would seem. Thats why i brought up temper tantrum in the MN case.

Thats my last say on this subject.

Doug

 

Judging by how MN people dealt with ICE, I expect they will not sit idly by with this legislation.

 

Apparently, in the case of AZ, the clearer thinkers prevailed. And/or the right lobbyists influenced the right legislators.

Let's see what happens in MN. I think nothing will happen, personally. Legislation is "proposed" all the time. Loads of it. Working up to an actual vote is another matter. I doubt either the government or the populace has an appetite for it at the moment.

Washington state dropped all emissions requirements a few years ago. The legislators apparently discovered that the juice wasn't worth the squeeze; there just wasn't enough of an emissions problem to justify continuing the requirement. I mention this only to prove that, at least at times, elected representatives can be sensible.

As an aside I'll mention that, IMO, emissions testing should be just that: the testing of emissions. The requirement for xyz-equipment to be in place is moronic. I'm pretty sure that at least some states have no "equipment" requirements.

A bit unusual coming from the person who started the thread :-)

I think it's a good topic for discussion. If nothing else it alerts others to keep an eye on what's going on in their own states.

Cheers
DD

 

I think the issue here (from the article) is:


Weekday Driving Ban Details

In other words, the state appears to be proposing a near-total ban on weekday cruising, nighttime drives, and spontaneous midweek trips for anyone with collector plates. Here’s the crazy part: the law in the state is already quite restrictive for cars in this class. As The Blaze points out, collector cars cannot currently be used for general transportation.
Owners can still take their cars out for test drives, informal meetups, or the occasional evening cruise without worrying too much about whether they technically qualify. HF 3865 would replace that flexibility with a far more rigid framework. That said, the bill also leaves some important questions unanswered. Terms like “exhibition” and “similar use” are not clearly defined, which could leave enforcement up to individual officers.

So it's a case of increasing restrictions that already exist, and not clearly defining the requirements.

 

If you look at the states that have restrictions, "not for general transportation" is quite common. So, if nothing else, Minnesota is not an outlier in that specific regard.

The standout part about the proposed MN legislation is the weekday and nighttime requirements.

Quote:

That said, the bill also leaves some important questions unanswered. Terms like “exhibition” and “similar use” are not clearly defined,

Again, not unique to MN.

It's no accident that many laws are written with ambiguous sections or statements. I think we all know that.

Quote:

which could leave enforcement up to individual

Which has always been the case, everywhere, all the time. Let's not pretend otherwise. Each officer decides for himself who he is gonna pull over that day and for what reasons. The he decides for himself who gets cited, and for what violations ....or who is gonna just get a warning. Or decides for himself that he just isn't concerned about certain infractions and routinely ignores them.

It would be interesting to research how often such violations are actually written-up by officers outside of the occasional local "crackdown". If we use expired registrations as a comparison we'd see that enforcement varies greatly by state or even municipality.

The Minnesota thing needs to be watched but my gut feeling is that it's a nothingburger at this point. It has to go to the transportation committee...where I think it will die. As of right now it isn't on their calendar.

Cheers
DD

 

Yes, that's the point. The article itself could really use a good editor. To diagram it:
The current law, like many state laws, include "not for general transportation." I don't think anyone is actually arguing against that.

The proposed law, however, makes it more restrictive: I fix my car on Friday night for the Saturday show. But with this proposal, it's not legal to test it, because it's after dark on a weekday. Much more restrictive than "other states".

As far as officer enforcement: Yes. But then you take the ticket before the judge. A lot of "ill-defined" laws get thrown out, because they are ill-defined. That's not the point. The real point is (in addition to the aforementioned restrictions) is the entire thing is poorly written.

Agreed it probably won't go anywhere. And I avoid MN under all circumstances, for several reason... I have no skin in this game. I was just commenting on previous posts stating "many States have restrictions." Of course they do. If they didn't, there'd be no point to historic/classic plates. But the exact restrictions are worth discussing, especially when the proposals are more restrictive than current proposals, without really identifying why the new restrictions are even necessary.

 

More info.

According to this article the bill is not moving forward:

https://www.fox9.com/news/minnesota-...-hearings-held

The article quotes the author of the bill. The quoted remarks don't make sense to me. But it's 4:49am and I'm just two sips into my first cuppa coffee.

Cheers
DD

 

It is good news that the bill is not moving forward. That may have something to do with pushback on boards like this. Few others wanted to board that crazy train.

It remains unclear: What problems was this proposal trying to address?

I read her comments as well. After several cups of coffee, breakfast, walking the puppy and thinking about it, those comments still make no sense to me.

 

That's certainly plausible.

And/or fellow legislators simply didn't want to "go there" for any number of reasons.....including the lack of clarity as to what was supposed to be accomplished. I have a mental image them them rolling their eyes and saying "What in the world did the newbie dream up with this?".


"A cure for which there is no disease" :-)

I'm sure we could have a long conversation about senseless laws...... or laws that made sense years ago but are no longer useful.

Anyhow, according to her remarks she was trying to improve things for classic car owners. I don't see how.

My best friend (and fellow Jag enthusiast) for many years served as an elected official in various capacities including a couple terms as an Oregon state legislator. He told many stories....some quite amusing....about newbies and nutty ideas.

As an aside I'll mention that a lot of the reporting on this MN thing has been misleading IMO. But that's a different conversation :-)

Cheers
DD

 

Interestingly, Belgium had the same type of arrangement for years : largely reduced road tax / reg. in exchange for not being able to drive on weekdays.
They since went back to an easier system where all types of driving are allowed, with the notable exceptions of commuting and commercial use. You can still use a classic for these purposes, but it must be registered / taxed / insured as a regular car.