Hacker News Reader

Comment by post_break | Hacker News Reader

I have to agree. I also think it's crazy how california is blocking old trucks from being registered. Imagine you have a 2009 truck, sorry it's 2020, you can't register it here.

View on HN

Sounds fine to me. Just because it's a state and not a country doesn't mean you can do whatever you want there.

I mean by that logic as long as 49 states allow you to register a truck sold in 2009 that still runs and drives and hasn't been modified that it's ok? Imagine if it were a 2009 prius? Would you be ok with it then?

edit I guess I've been shadow banned for wrong think in here, can't respond to comments.

Yes, because in theory, to borrow a Republican talking point, the federal governments authority is explicitly limited to interstate commerce, defense and piracy on the high seas. This has nothing to do with any of those things, so each state is free to decide what they permit or deny within their borders, so long as it's, you know, constitutional.

Some states criminalize possession of substances others don't. Some criminalize certain behaviors and practices that others don't. Why should that stop at the freeways?

If California regulation de facto prohibits out-of-state cars from being sold or operating inside of it the rules may run afoul of the interstate commerce clause.

At least in the history book I used there is a direct parallel: a precedent setting case had to do with regulations about tractor trailer wheel mudflap sizes. States would set different conflicting values so that they could restrict the traffic through them (or force a waste of time before coming in).

There may also be another argument based on how states must, in general, respect each other's licenses (marriage, driver, etc; but interestingly not concealed carry, something I suspect will be tested again soon).

> If California regulation de facto prohibits out-of-state cars from being sold or operating inside of it the rules may run afoul of the interstate commerce clause.

Right, but in our scenario they're not prohibiting them, they're prohibiting registering them. That's different than the mud-flaps issue, which does actually seem problematic in my opinion for exactly that reason: it inhibits inter-state commerce.

The test is one that doesn't care about intent. If it can be found that, say, bespoke car makers (do they even exist?) based outside of California have a much harder time selling to California residents because of this law then it could be struck down. It would also be possible to use the lack of any small car makers as evidence against the law in question.

> edit I guess I've been shadow banned for wrong think in here, can't respond to comments.

Keeping your post visible while disabling replies is the exact opposite of what shadow banning is.

I must have been rate limited or something, it came back.

My dad didn't have any trouble registering his 2008 truck this year. Emissions standards aren't retroactive— if you take a car to get smogged it only has to meet the emissions standards from the year it was made

California decided that's not the case: https://www.ccjdigital.com/carb-to-begin-blocking-certain-tr...

Gotcha. My dad's truck weights less than 14,000 pounds so it sounds like he'll be OK.

Absolutely false.

California has categorized entire model series (spanning years) as "Hugh emitter profile" years after release regardless of what your individual vehicle has ever measured. My small pickup truck is one such victim. I've had to get the full dynamometer test every other year for over 20 years, costing over $80 each time. It's always passed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com