🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7tlafg$rbs$1@news.psyber.com>,
Barry <barry@jasmine.psyber.com> wrote:
>David Hatunen (hatunen@bolt.sonic.net) wrote:
>
>: If the car is made such as to meet California emission
>: requiremments it should have a decal saying so under the hood. Then
>: there's no charge.
>
>I understand that.
>
>My comment was directed toward tail pipe emissions.  If they're
>the same or if the "out of state car" is better, than there should
>have been no fine.

It's not a fine.

>The sticker doesn't implicitly mean that the car produces lower
>emissions.  It means that it has different emissions equipment
>that may or may not, depending on the characteristics of the car,
>"lower emissions."
>
>There could be cases where the car w/o the Calif. sticker might 
>emit lower emissions, due to the condition of the car.  
>
>'Clear?

You're missing the point. The law is that if the car doesn't ahe
the California emissions sticker you have to pay extra to bring the
car in. And it doesn't allow exemptions for specific cars. It's
general thing, and assumes, I would suppose, that in general cars
will have lower emissions as a group if the equipment were present.
I'm not defending the fee. I had to pay it myself when I moved
here. 

But if you don't like it you have to take it up with either the
state legislature or wait for the current litigation to run its
entire course. My own guess is that the state supremes will uphold
the law requiring opponents to take it into the federal judicial
system. My other guess is that the US Supremes will decide it's the
sort of thing that's best left for the states.

-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@sonic.net) ***********
    *                Daly City California                 *
    ******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******