Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SeaworthinessLeft88 t1_jdfp2bi wrote

The 30 day rule is the dumbest thing that I learned during this entire story. You shouldn’t have to register a car here unless you live here for a majority of the year. It should be a 183 day rule, not a 30 day rule. For fucks sake.

140

Markymarcouscous t1_jdftraw wrote

I’m sure a federal court would agree it feels like an overstep by MA government

60

trc_IO t1_jdg07ei wrote

How is it an overstep, in a federal sense?

0

Markymarcouscous t1_jdg0s88 wrote

You’re regulating things for people who aren’t your “citizens” it would basically be a violation of the interstate commerce clause. It is also entirely reasonable for the people of NH, RI, and CT to operate their cars in ma for more than 30 days in the year. Federal court would probably rule that you have to actually live in MA as a resident to be required to register your car similar yo how income tax laws work.

71

mtgordon t1_jdhj438 wrote

Interstate travel is typically considered to fall under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Massachusetts is effectively saying that after 30 days in Massachusetts, someone loses the right to move to Virginia; that’s plainly unconstitutional.

6

trc_IO t1_jdhnaia wrote

But Massachusetts isn't revoking his Virginia license. They're telling Virginia what happened and the decision appears to be up to Virginia.

1

dyqik t1_jdh6o0c wrote

When assessing residency for state income tax purposes, the rule is 183 days in a year, or 1 day with intent to establish residency in Massachusetts.

It's the latter one that requires tax officials to interpret intent, and the tax version of this RMV official could try the same thing. But tax doesn't have the canceling a driver license enforcement stick, and is all done after the fact.

A change to the car registration rules would likely follow something like the tax system rules, to cover requiring people who move to MA over half way through a year.

10