Illinois Tint Law

Hello, & thanks to all who made the new laws happen.

I bought a new car under cash for clunkers, & have been waiting for the new laws.




This is a 2009 Honda Fit with Llumar ATR High Performance charcoal color hybrid film (i.e. dyed metallic), 35% front and 15% back

If I used the 35% all around, is this legal?

Guardian Graphics,

The thing to KNOW now is that it will be an offense that you can be fined for when you install illegal tint NOW! That makes the difference from before. I hope you caught that part early in this thread that this new law can be yanked quickly if the trend stays with darker tint!

You came on and made the statement about a very dark film being placed on the whole car. That is illegal for EVERY state in the USA. You have also stated that tinting is a very small part of YOUR business. So, if you lose even 50% of the tint jobs that you would get with darker tint you should easily be able to get more than that amount back in the NEW business that has been created.

I have fought hard for all my tinting years with the "tint is illegal" statement. It has also been virtually impossible to sell dealerships here because they didn't like the idea of just the rear windows. I KNOW this new law is great and is will open many doors that were closed before.

I am ready to say NO and sell the legal tinting.....you should be too.

Thank you lil details. You are one of the few that "gets" it. And that, my friend, makes it all worthwhile. Bottom line for all the idiots messing with what we accomplished against nearly impossible odds......if you can't make a living selling LEGAL tint in Illinois now, you have issues and maybe need to find another line of work. The rest of us are watching, and shops that blatantly abuse the law will be noticed, trust me.

I always said that if IL had a legal tint then that is what I would offer....now we do.

Thanks again for the work you and all put in to this. I WISH it was anything rear and 35% front or 20% at least on the rear with 35% front, but I have done quite a few cars with my Global HP 40% on the whole car and it just RICH to say the least....

I have seen a new Impala that I did this way and it was very dark to see pass by....and other times looks very light....I LOVE IT!

To offer something on Guardian Graphics....

They are in a very cut throat area and the value of window tinting got HACKED over the last year or so. They are very great people and I am sure that they will appreciate it more than you think.....

hey ryker, how does that 40% meter out on a car??

Not sure man, I have not got a meter yet. Never needed one before.....

sigh...

let me clue you in on a little secret.. I used to be self employed in Indiana. over there the shop could get slapped with a $10K fine for installing illegal film.

my livelihood was threatened by some hacks that didn't care. it only took ONE phone call to the State District Attornet in the area about each of the shops that were allegedly performing illegal work.

here's how it shook down....

shop 1) .. this fella was tinting in his parent's garage without a business license. needless to say, his parents were threatened w/ the $10k fine and other citations for allowing a business operation in their residential neighborhood. (i saw an increase in work after he was stopped)

shop 2).. (now THIS was funny) when one would call this shop they'd tell you on the phone "yeah, we'll do darker than 30% but it has to be cash only, no receipt, no warranty".. when i told the D.A. about this, they stopped in there in plainclothes w/ an unmarked car to get it tinted. they had an appt. showed up for it. had the car tinted, then it got funny.. the D.A. slapped them with the $10k fine and the other 'customer' was with the IRS and wanted to do an audit of the film they've been purchasing versus the film they've been allegedly selling etc.. needless to say, the Dad that used to own that shop now doesn't, however his kid does and they ONLY do legal installs..

and THIS is how you protect your ability to feed your kids (as i DO have kids to feed and bills to pay) and maintain the integrity of the industry for the long term. I'm normally not a snitch, but when it comes to taking food off the table it's cut throat if you're doing things illegally and cheating me out of my rightful share.

And instead of looking for the how all this will adversely effect your ability to make money, you should be damned happy there were a few people like me who basically secured your future in this business, unless of course there are more idiots that will blow the whole thing up. Damn ungrateful SOBs.

Ya, I cud see that. Snitching sucks, but I understand. But the story you are telling sounds like entrapment on the part of the IRS and the DA? Was the case thrown out of court or was that a scare tactic on the part of the DA? See I would be worried that the same phone call cud be made on me without proof, which basically means you are guilty till proven innocent. It wouldn't be bad if the officers could enforce it the new law on the streets with meters and such, but to fine a shop seems like you would really have to build a case based on witness accounts. Once again, I am not saying I will tint illegally, but I am definately going to be paying attention to this snitching and fining.

ryk, if you find a decent meter and a good price lemme know! I need to get one!

35% all around except windshield is legal now

you guys are loco...!

Make it so confusing..!!!

Just make it 35% all around like Hawaii.. then Done....

OT and Gus .. a fellow co-worker of mine would like to know who drew up the new tint law.. who allowed 50% w/ factory privacy but nothing w/ 20% ? (this question doesn't come from me, from a co-worker )

YES!! 5%....

My guess is that is where the 30% FILM came in. If the numbers come across straight then 30% film and 70% glass will be at 21% which would be the same as most "privacy" glass....

I don't know.!!!!

i guess i need to read the wording in the law then LOL... my coworker said that it's "stupid" to allow 50% on the fronts w/ factory darkened glass, but nothing w/ 20% film on the back .. (again, it's his comment not mine, i'm just trying to get an answer to his quesiton LOL)

thanks
mike

another thought is that they didn't want to make it unfair to the people that have the MPV privacy glass to not be able to have protection. You can't make those windows lighter like removing film after all....

That is sort of the working that the Gov put in the Veto he had....

Now here is MY QUESTION.....

The law was SUPPOSED to be 35% film and it appears to state FILM on the front, but the rear windows it says WINDOWS allowing 35% VLT. So, if it was supposed to be 35% film then it seems off to me.

I use Global HP and have their 40 film. The VLT on the film is 39% and I am hoping that will be good, but I talked to a Llumar guy today and he said that Missouri has to use the Llumar 40 film to get a 35% NET and that the Llumar 40 hits like 45% actual film....

which ones would be better to use to be on the safe side, 40 or just 50? i guess some 35% films actually are cutting it to close right?

You'd be safe with 40% film. Actually, you are safe with most 38% films. The variance of +/- 5% brings it down to net 30. It was suppose to be a film law, it somehow got a little jumbled. Anyway, 38% works so no big deal. To address the film/net issue now brings up the possibility of opening a can of worms. To most involved, it isn't worth the risk. The SUV thing was like lil details said, we simply asked that something be available for the front doors of SUVs, and they obliged with the 50%. Since there is no real difference between factory privacy and your typical 20-15% film, I don't see how that could become a major issue. Again, our main goal when we had something, anything, was to get it through and deal with the inevitable small issues later. We get absolutely nowhere without the support of the state polic, so they pretty much dictated the numbers from what they saw at the demo. I've said it before, this was a near impossible task, something that has never before been done in Illinois, or a few other states for that matter, that we were more intent on getting the foundation laid than risking tying things up further with every small detail(which we decided would be addressed later as any issues arose). We did the best we could, it was a difficult task to say the least, and I think we helped the industry as whole have the ability to survive and even thrive here in Illinois. I personally think we did a fine job.

I can say that just today, i did 3 separate trucks w/ 50% on the front 2, a jeep wrangler w/ 50% on the front 2 and a w/s strip (on the jeep) and a Mercury Milan w/ 35% all around.. (in addition to the 2 other vehicles that came in to have remote start transmitters programmed LOL)

very productive day .. thanks again OT and all that were involved

have you checked them with a meter?

not to sound like an idiot, but why would I need to ??

(taken from the code itself)



this reads FILM THAT ALLOWS at least 50% light transmittance... w/ a 5% variance.. I used madico CH55.. i believe that'll be FILM allowing at least 50% w/ a 5% variance.
it doesn't say "film may be applied such that the glass, when measured by a law enforcement official, will allow at least 50% blah blah.. it says FILM..
or am I in need of more reading classes ?? haha

(as a side note, when I was tinting in Indiana, we made a regular habit of installing 30% window film. their law specifically said FILM and 30%. The owner of the shop had his attorney look it over and his attorney said we were within our legal rights to install 30% film. the tint law never made mention of what the NET percentage was or should be )

YMMV

I am just concerned that this is being stated as a NET law. I have been concerned about the way it is written from the first House Bill was mentioned. If it is to be FILM then there needs to be some sort of chart to make it possible to know that a 35% film will come off darker on the "clear" but still 70% glass that we have on autos here....

I think it is crazy that they worded it "tinted film" on the front but the rear just says "allow at least xx% transmittance" and doesn't say anything about FILM....

I just don't want to send a customer out with 35% all around and they get a ticket because the police meter it and it is darker....

well, i think 35% all around should be OK...

the owner of my place of employment says we can put 35% all around. I'm assuming he has the $$ to pursue things in court if it came to that..

it's a minor technicality in my opinion.. I agree that the wording is a little off, but I don't think it's enough to get worked up over..

35% w/ a 5% variance is ok.. most tint meters have a +/- 2% anyways .. so that'll get you down to about 28% NET... (technically..) and i'm certain that most officers will let it go if it's pretty close and they can see through the film.

again, i may be a little off here, but that's just my opinion... AND from what i can tell, most officers still do not have VLT meters yet anyways
YMMV

No...your math is correct Zrok. +/- 5% variance plus the +/-2% that applies to any meter and you get 28 net. Like I said, to make a big uproar about the language now is not a good idea. If you are that concerned about it, simply go with a 40% film and be done with it. Can anyone(customers) really tell THAT much of a difference in 5% vlt? I don't think so. Either way, it's not worth getting all worked up over because it is a HUGE upgrade to the tinting laws in this state any way you look at it. Stop picking it apart and enjoy.

that's the way i'm looking at it. for the 50% think, i'm using onyx or Charcool 55% (which gets me a little over the 5% tolerance) and i'm using either onx or CH 35% as well.. it's good enough for who it's for.. err.. close enough for government work HAHAHA

enjoy and thanks again OT and crew

You think very highly of yourself dont you??
The law is not all that and a bag of chips, like you lead everyone on to believe..
It is confusing and as much time and effort spent, it should be a simple cut
and dry deal, not this mixed and matched load of Crap..
Do I appreciate the time and effort, yes, but get off the high horse and come back down to earth now..
Am I glad the law changed, Hell NO, this whole thing of ratting, and being a little girl about things is a joke
and something that should not be condoned, it was better before and the shops should NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE !!
But alast, it is changed, and nothing can be done now, it will be a confusing mess, and good hard working people will
be forced out of business, all because a few guys like yourself thought it was a great idea.. Dont bother replying, to this
unless you feel compelled to do so, I signed up just for this one post, and will not b back to follow up, I just couldnt take
all the chest thumping and the 800 gorilla in the room.. Flame on Old Tinter, its what you seem to be good at !!

so you prefer no tint over legal tint? doesn't sound like something a tinter should be saying.

Thats the way to do it...Sign up make one post and run away......Sounds like someone may be worried about job security

well, I just talked to Lenwood Butner, legal for IWFA, and he confirmed my fear of the actual law being a net 35%! So that means all those putting out 35% film will actually be violating the law. Also, the 50% film is NOT going to be a legal film for the front...find a 70% film.

I know that I am going to be losing business with this fact. I know it is better than NOTHING for the front, but I also know that I would not even think of paying someone to put a 50% film on my whole car. 35% looks good and you can see right in well enough most of the time.

That is the VAGUE part. It is a 35% VLT through the combined glass and film combo....

i have been thinking lately of buying some 70%, but i just don't think anyones going to spend the money for something that light

something like Geoshield IrIs 70 might be a seller or V-kool 70 which will both block a nice amount of heat, but with the cost of the film being around 3 times as much for Geo and even more for V-kool I don't think that it would be an easy sell around here....

what is the website for either of those films?? i would only want to get either 20 or 24" rolls, i don't think id ever do any BG with it. just the front windows on cars or trucks. but your right, i had 2 guys last week want me to do 20% to match the bg on their trucks. i talked them into just doing 50%, but i think alot of people wouldn't want to pay me to bother with such a lite film. 9 out 10 people want atleast 35% on there front windows. But just last week i picked up a roll of some 42%, i layed it up next to my 35 and even i couldn't tell the difference between them. Just to play it safe, i am going to just use this 42 from now on, since your stating that the 35% is net

No, nothing about job security, I rarely do Auto, but have friends that do, and this new law is in fact a JOKE..
I do not want to get into a big drawn out beating of the perverbial dead horse.. Just giving my input, and opinion,
dont like it, sorry.. Better than signing up and kissing ass to try and be a big shot.. Like I said, with the time and effort
put into changing this law, and you can still paint the back black ?? There should be no 05% on any windows other than
a limo or something of commercial nature, not on Personal vehichles.. Nothing darker than 20% on the back and 35% on front
and that would make for a simple change that everyone could live with.. Instead, we have this, OH if you have this, then you can have this,
or if you have that kind of vehichle, you can have this.. Doesnt make it very easy to explain to the average customer, and then to
hold the shop responsible for trying to keep their doors open, when the economy is already bad, doesnt make much since, and is a step backwards IMO..

No I perfer to let the customer decide if they want to take the chance on getting the ticket,
not the shop.. What happen to people having individual responsibility??
Not to mention, Our state is already hurting financially, how the hell are we going to afford
to put testers in all of the Patrol cars for the state of IL ?? We cant even afford to put our
officers in newer cars, much less equipped with all these little goodies?? Like I said, a simple
change in the law, and no one would have to worry about it, we would all be able to do our job
everyone would be much more safe, ( take away 05% tint) on the road !! Dont like it, sorry, just MHO..

like having the responsibility of installing film that meets legal specs rather than installing something that you know is illegal for the road?

I just read this thread, I thought you said you just signed up for one post

like "lay's" potato chips....no one can have just ONE....

I was there from the start. I'm not tootin my own horn either. But YOU SOUND LIKE AN ASS that just wants to complain. YOU were not there. Like others have said, it got complicated. Yes it was suppose to be a film law, NOT a net law. By the time we figured out that others screwed it up it was too late PERIOD.
If you want to make the back as dark as your heart desires, you can. That did not change.

What every one dose not realize is the fact that Representative LaShawn K. Ford (D) from CHicago wrote up a bill that would fine the tinter up to .$500.00 for illegally tinting. This bill went through with no problems. SO if the current law did not change concerning front windows, Every time you tinted any front window on an Illinois car, you would be putting your self at risk for some big fines.

SO STOP THROWING SOME ONE YOU DON'T KNOW UNDER THE BUS FOR SOME THING THEY DID TO HELP OTHERS.

Has anybody heard of House Bill 4769 and Senate Bill 3024? It seems like it would reverse what was already done to get the new tint law. Here is what it reads:

Amends the Illinois Vehicle Code. Deletes a provision concerning side window tinting on multipurpose passenger vehicles and adds a provision providing that on vehicles where a nonreflective smoked or tinted glass that was originally installed by the manufacturer on the windows to the rear of the driver's seat, a nonreflective tint that allows at least 50% light transmittance may be used on the vehicle windows immediately adjacent to each side of the driver. Provides that the use of a nonreflective, smoked, or tinted glass or nonreflective film is not allowed on the window's to the rear of the driver if window treatment has been applied to the windows immediately adjacent to each side of the driver. Makes other technical changes. Effective immediately.

just sounds like the bill that they said they would have.....the way the original one was written and the gov had vetoed it was that the MPV was not allowing any tint on the front sides.....

I still say this whole thing is lame with the way it came out. The FACT that the legal wording only allows a total VLT of 30% WITH the 5% variance and the factory glass being around 70% already.....makes for a 43% film for the darkest allowed to get that 35%

don't ya just love the goverment and there rules and ways of stating things lol

So the electrician wiring your new house

The mechanic replacing your rotor and pads

The plumber laying pipe at your new house

The gastro doc going up your azz

All should have the same opinion