Hour 3 : Rob Doar Joins

Hour 3 of the show begins with Rob Doar joining the show to talk about Gun Issues in Minnesota.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:08):
It almost feels like a Freedom Friday.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
Some of the talkbacks that we've received, I'll address these
coming up. Some really good questions coming from friends of
the show here on Twin Cities News Talk Am eleven
thirty one oh three five FM from the sixty five
to one Carpet plus Next Day Install Studios. My name
is John Justice. Will bring on Rob Door from the
Minnesota Gun Owner's Caucus. As a matter of fact, let
me play this one because I think Rob can help

(00:33):
with a bit of commentary on this. We were talking
fraud just a moment ago. More questions raised about the
SNAP of issuances posted COVID based off of the Walls
administration's response to basically.

Speaker 1 (00:49):
Saying there were clerical errors.

Speaker 2 (00:51):
For lack of a better way to put it, when
it comes to this spike, the spike was com pandemic
era reporting mistakes. Not to increase to benefit distribution does
not mean these tax dollars were mistakingly dolda out in
the one hundred and seventy four percent increase. Pam Altendorf,

(01:12):
the representative said that if it's true, they are now
admitting to potentially submitting four plus years of SNAP records incorrectly.

Speaker 1 (01:20):
To the USDA. At best, it's.

Speaker 2 (01:23):
Another example of the mismanagement and dysfunction within the Watson administration.
At worst, it's an attempt to conceal the growing web
of fraud that continues to unravel under the governor's watch.

Speaker 1 (01:38):
Hey, could you get this talk back to John, Please
get right here. Why don't they just do a simple
audit of the Minnesota.

Speaker 3 (01:45):
Legislature and all the programs.

Speaker 1 (01:48):
Every transaction leaves a trail.

Speaker 2 (01:50):
Just get on it, stiff it out, and let's put
some people in jail.

Speaker 1 (01:55):
We are tired of this.

Speaker 4 (01:57):
Have a good day.

Speaker 2 (01:58):
Well, they do do audits, but there's also a process.

Speaker 1 (02:04):
Involved in all of this.

Speaker 2 (02:06):
And as we've seen, just because you end up exposing fraud,
it doesn't mean you could immediately go and just lock
somebody up.

Speaker 1 (02:14):
I mean, it's an over generalization. I know what it
is you're referring to.

Speaker 2 (02:17):
But Rob Dorr a legal expert Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus
as well.

Speaker 1 (02:22):
You know, Rob, maybe you can speak to this.

Speaker 2 (02:25):
I mean, we do audits at the legislative level of
these different programs, but there's also, you know, a process
involved when you do these things, and it doesn't mean
that you're immediately going to see accountability when there is
some error in a particular program.

Speaker 3 (02:42):
Correct, Yeah, I mean there is the Office of the
Legislative Auditor that you know, Jim Nobles ran for years,
and he uncovers a ton of you know, misappropriations, but
they have no enforcement ability. All they do is write reports.
Then it's up to you know, the state government to
take enforcement actions. And you know, shockingly, the Walls administration

(03:05):
has been reluctant to take action against itself for its
own fraudulent actions.

Speaker 2 (03:11):
Well, and then you actually have in certain circumstances, and
we won't get in all the details raw, but you
do have the Department of Justice that comes in and
steps in. But even then you're, you know, you're you're
sometimes limited to just investigations unless there's something that ends
up reaching the level where somebody can be charged with something.

Speaker 1 (03:29):
So I think it's a long way of saying that.

Speaker 2 (03:31):
There's a lot being done, even though it's not yielding
the results that people so often want to see, especially
given the amount of fraud that we've uncovered here in
the state of Minnesota. You know, we've been talking about
this forever and this is nothing you know, nothing new
in terms of the conversations that we've had. It just
continues to demonstrate how frustrated people are.

Speaker 3 (03:51):
Rob. You know this, yeah, well, and unfortunately, running a
really bad state program and doling out lots of money
to people who don't deserve it isn't a crime if
the legislature authorized it. So you know, now we're not
in the criminal zone. We're in an electoral accountability zone.
And you know there's some great candidates running to try

(04:11):
to change that status.

Speaker 2 (04:13):
Quote before Rob, we dive into the firearmor ordinances, whether
it's Saint Paul or DNA.

Speaker 1 (04:20):
Let's revisit this just briefly.

Speaker 2 (04:22):
The Upper Midwest Law Center and I believe you guys
were involved in the Minnesota gun Owners Caucus as well,
but securing another victory for Minnesota and the Minnesota constitution
and the Ramsey County District Court denied the state's motion
to stay the ruling that previously struck down the binary
trigger ban. So this means the provision unconstitutionally jammed into

(04:43):
the fourteen hundred plus page twenty twenty four omnibus bill
remains unenforceable. So one Rob, curious to get your thoughts
on the court's decision. But two, what does this mean
for the future in total of that twenty four on
the bus bill.

Speaker 3 (05:03):
Yeah, so you know kind of what happened with this
is we won at district court level and the they
said that the the omnibus provision or the binary trigger provision,
violated the single subject clause. And Judge Castro noted that there,
you know, the the there's problems all throughout the bill,
but exercising judicial restraint, he he only gave relief on

(05:26):
the area that we had standing on, which would be
the gun you know, the gun provisions, and the only
gun provision was the binary trigger portion. The state then
appeals that they tried to get the Supreme Court to
hear it on expedited review. Supreme Court said no, the
Minnesota Supreme Court, so they lost there, and then they
went back to Judge Castro and said, well, what we

(05:47):
wanted you to continue enforcing the binary trigger ban until
this case works out. And what Judge Castro clapped back
in very abrupt fashion and said that it was the
state sales to realize that the binary trigger provision was
never constitutionally passed. And then he goes and says it

(06:09):
was only at a sheer judicial restraint as directed by
our Supreme Court. That I didn't just toss out the
whole Omnibus bill. So we've crossed appealed now saying that
we want the whole Omnibus bill struck and down. And
that's where we're at right now. So the state was
trying to seek to reinstate the binary trigger band. Judkrastro said, no,

(06:31):
you guys seem to don't understand that. Don't seem to
understand that the whole thing was illegally passed to begin with.

Speaker 2 (06:37):
So can you go back to the it was only
through judicial restraint as guided and directed by the Supreme Court.
So I assume that means the judge could have gone
and struck down the entire Omnibus bill, but he's he
basically didn't because he was following suit with the state
Supreme Court.

Speaker 3 (06:58):
Correct.

Speaker 2 (06:58):
I know, I'm just basically rewarding what was here. But
can you provide a little clarityal separation.

Speaker 3 (07:03):
There's a general separation of powers understanding that judges aren't
going to go beyond uh, they're what the case in
front of them addresses, because otherwise you just end up
in a world where where rogue judges decide to go
well beyond whatever the allegations are in the in the
complaint and start doing things, you know, striking down bills

(07:25):
or enforcing government actions that weren't even a controversy that
was brought in front of them. So the Supreme Court
of Minnesota, in the Supreme Court of the United States,
generally wants judges to be as narrowly tailored in their
decisions as possible to the controversy in front of them.

Speaker 1 (07:43):
Makes sense.

Speaker 2 (07:44):
I'm glad I asked and thank you for the insight.
Talking with Rob Dorf from the Minnesota Gun Owner's Caucus,
So speak about what happened yesterday. The City of Saint
Paul moved forward with it's illegal gun ban ordinance, directly
violating Minnesota and the firearm preemption statutes. So talk about
what the ordinance, what was entailed in the ordinance itself

(08:07):
from Saint Paul, and what was the legal grounds of
which the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus went to sue.

Speaker 3 (08:14):
Yeah, so right now, the City of Saint Paul, they
passed this ordinance which bans possession. Now they keep saying
public possession, but that's not what the ordinance says it
bans possession of assault weapons, any magazines with a capacity
of over twenty rounds, any guns that don't have a
serial number, and then you know, you can't carry in

(08:38):
public sensitive places like libraries, the Como Park and places
like that. So they have all of these provisions in there.
But the problem is that state law says that only
the state legislature can establish firearms laws in Minnesota, and
it says that the cities and local units of government
can't do that, and so that one of the issues.

(09:00):
But the other issue is they attempted to in order
to evade judicial review to find that their law wasn't
constitutional or was it in compliance with Minnesota statutes, put
in this zombie provision that says, well, only after the
state repeals preemption can this go into effect. But in

(09:22):
the language of the ordinance, it says it goes into
effect within thirty days. And that's unconstitutionally vague. So we
suit on numerous grounds, one that it violates preemption, actually
two levels of preemption. One that it's unconstitutionally vague, and
we're seeking on seeking a court injunction declaring it invalid.

Speaker 1 (09:43):
So let's also move over.

Speaker 2 (09:44):
I have some questions regarding the let's also move over
to what's taking place in the city of Dyna, because
they are also looking to pass an ordinance that attempts
to regulate firearms. I assume the rationale for a potential
lawsuit the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus to the City of
Designa would be under the same guys of what you

(10:05):
just mentioned relating to Saint Paul.

Speaker 3 (10:08):
Yeah, you know, if you remember, you know, about a
month ago, to Melvin Carter and Jacob Frye all, you know,
went up on siege with a bunch of mayors talking about,
you know, how they want to do something on you know,
gun violence prevention or whatever. And this is their response
is they've got a coalition of cities that are preparing

(10:29):
to pass illegal ordinances under a very shady legal theory.
Uh that you know that it doesn't harm people until
it's enforced, but the mere act of a city passing
an ordinance that it has no authority to pass arms
our members and should harm everybody. We should all expect
that our our city councils and mayors are not little

(10:53):
kings and queens of their fesdom that they're going to
follow state laws.

Speaker 1 (10:59):
So where do so where do both of these rests?

Speaker 5 (11:02):
Now?

Speaker 2 (11:02):
When is he Dinah supposed to move forward with their
with their ordinance?

Speaker 3 (11:06):
So I think it's being introduced on the eighteenth, and
then you know the they have to have three separate readings,
so there's introduction and then there's a second reading with
public comment, and then there's a third stage, which is
a final passage. Saint Paul had their final passage last night,
and then you know we we sued them seven minutes later.

(11:27):
We would have been quicker except Mayor Melvin Carter was
nowhere to be found in the building, so we had
to serve the city clerk.

Speaker 2 (11:33):
So so where do you think this is going to go? Well,
I mean, let me let me ask you this question
before we go with sort of timelines in your mind.
Rob Dorr again from the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus. You know,
the cities, they know what they're doing here. I mean,
is this all just political theater in there moving forward
with these ordinances? I mean, what ultimately is the goal here?

(11:55):
Is it to bolster Governor Tim Walls in his town
halls while he still refuses to go and call for
a special session. I'm curious your thoughts on motivation.

Speaker 3 (12:04):
Yeah, I mean, these cities don't like the fact that
this that their authority is limited by state law in
the Minnesota state Constitution. So in order to you know,
it is all theater because they're claiming not to want
to enforce this. But you know that's that's problematic. You
can't just pass a law, have it enacted, and then

(12:25):
think we pinky swear we're not going to enforce it.
I can understand why citizens that don't find comfort in that.
It is all symbolic. Even the aDNA City attorney sent
a memo, we got this through Data Practices Act, sent
a memo to the council saying, you guys, shouldn't do
this because you're going to get sued. It's going to
waste city resources. Just do a resolution instead. So even

(12:46):
their own legal counsel is telling them not to do
what they're doing, but they're going along because they really
want that messaging that you know, that they're taking a
stand or whatever to satisfy the extremities of their base.

Speaker 2 (12:59):
So if the judge doesn't rule in your favor, I mean,
what does that mean in terms of moving forward in
the future. If the courts don't side with your with
your lawsuit, then they allow these cities to move forward
with these ordinances. I mean, what does that mean? What
are sort of the unintended consequences of that in your mind?

Speaker 3 (13:18):
So the biggest risk for our lawsuit is something called ripeness,
and we knew that from the start, and we're prepared
to have that fight and have that argument. There's no
question that the statute violates state law. If a court
looks at that that that's going to be absolutely clear.
And I can't and will absolutely take that fight all
the way to the Supreme Court, who has ruled on

(13:41):
similar cases like this that preemption means that the cities
can't do these things. So if we get that far,
what the cities are going to try to do is say, well, hey,
this is you know, nobody's actually been harmed by this
because we put in this little pinky promise that we're
not going to enforce it. I you know, we've got
a plan to try to try to do that, but

(14:01):
they're going to try to get it tossed on procedural
grounds without addressing the actual merits of the lawsuit.

Speaker 2 (14:07):
Robed Door from the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus. Thank you
for the time this morning. Anything that you would like
to mention before I.

Speaker 1 (14:13):
Let you go today.

Speaker 3 (14:15):
Yeah, so you know these are our legal fights. Even
though you know I'm doing the lawyering work on these,
we still have to you know, get higher outside council,
higher process servers, hire legal researchers to help us out.
To anybody who appreciates that we're planning on suing every
one of these seventeen cities. If you if you want

(14:36):
us to stop it in your city, we could really
use some financial support. You can go to gun Owners
dot MN to make a donation towards that effort.

Speaker 2 (14:44):
Rob Door, Thanks buddy, I appreciate the time and the insight.

Speaker 1 (14:47):
Have a great one. We'll talk soon.

Speaker 3 (14:49):
Thanks. John.

Speaker 2 (14:49):
Appreciate you your talkbacks coming out talk back of the
day just after the bottom of the hour. Also, how
the DFL trifecta tab fee hike is hitting a ardability
for Minnesota.

Speaker 1 (15:01):
And that's right.

Speaker 2 (15:01):
The trifecta elections have consequences. You're paying more for your tabs. Also,
I had commentary a while back relating to all of
the e vehicles and the speed at which they travel
on our streets and sidewalks a little level of concern
regarding that I'm not the only one. And now there's
a woman actually pushing for a state law to regulate

(15:24):
certain e bikes.

Speaker 1 (15:25):
We'll get into that coming up.

Speaker 2 (15:26):
Here on Twidnesday's News Talk AM eleven thirty and one
oh three five FM.

Speaker 6 (15:39):
Why does conservative radio, conservative TV always talk about mainstream media?

Speaker 1 (15:44):
How large is your audience.

Speaker 6 (15:45):
Versus you know, the mainstream media's. How large is you
know Fox News audience? How large is Beck's audience? And
yet all these outlets talk about the mainstream media, which
I suspect isn't as large. It's just curious.

Speaker 1 (16:04):
It's a good question.

Speaker 2 (16:05):
I'll try to not make it complicated here on the
answer in Twin City's News Talk from the six five
to one Carpet Next Day Install Studios. I can't give
you the numbers like I could sit here and break
down Nielsen numbers relating to ratings, streaming numbers, downloads of podcasts,

(16:26):
and that kind of speaks to the answer.

Speaker 1 (16:30):
It's not as simple as it used to be. It's
not a.

Speaker 2 (16:34):
Matter anymore of how many individuals are actually going and
tuning in to a particular outlet, because it's all been
segmented when it comes to the mainstream media, and I
will get to an answer to your question. Again this
is a bit complicated, but when it comes to the
mainstream media, their audiences have diminished greatly, but they found

(16:56):
other ways in order to go and reach audiences and
therefore ultimately go and sell advertising clips that they share online.

Speaker 1 (17:07):
SNL does the same thing.

Speaker 2 (17:10):
It's a lot like when you go and watch a debate,
where you have millions of people potentially tuning into a debate,
but what ultimately matters to the candidates is those soundbites
that they can get and they can post on various
social media outlets. Mainstream media does the same thing. So
the totality of numbers of an audience isn't limited anymore
in terms of the importance of that audience to just

(17:33):
who is tuning in in that moment, you know, relating
to mainstream media versus political commentary. And I would still
say that mainstream media has more viewers, but again it's segmented.
We talk about it because that is a place where
people consume their news and where they continue to hear

(17:54):
the sound bites from politicians and other individuals, not just
when they're watching the mainstream media, but when they're online
on various social media platforms. So that's why we continue
to talk about the mainstream media. When I mentioned that,
I'm not just talking about the show that happens to
be on CNN or MSNBC or Fox News or ABC

(18:14):
right now. I'm talking about the content that they perpetuate
that goes beyond just watching a particular show in the moment,
as it is spread across multiple platforms that people go
and use in different ways to consume their news. So
I hope that's an answer to your question and a

(18:36):
preview of a Freedom Friday.

Speaker 7 (18:40):
You know, a month ago, John, I was laughing at
all these no Kings protests, But I guess I was wrong.
Just in the city of Saint Paul, they're getting ready
to pass an ordinance. They know it's on constitutional I
guess their kings.

Speaker 2 (18:53):
Yeah, the no Kings argument was always dumb, as is
this person here from Alpha News speaking of no Kings
when cities No King's protester, an organizer against President Donald Trump,
is a convicted sex offender who appears to be presenting
himself using a name other than the one that he
was convicted under huh oh. David Anthony Wickland, who goes

(19:16):
by David Larkland on social media and in media reports,
was listed as one of the four organizers behind the
October eighteenth No Kings protest that took place at the
Lakeview Terrace Park near the border of Robinsdale and North Minneapolis,
which was also attended by DFLLOW representative Mike Freiberg. Wickland,

(19:37):
forty three, was convicted in the Hennepin County District Court
in September of twenty two on a felony count or
fourth decree a degree criminal sexual conduct involving massage or
bodywork for hire salacious. The charges stemmed from a case
filed in twenty twenty one that states that Wickland sexually
I can't.

Speaker 1 (19:57):
Say that.

Speaker 2 (20:00):
Basically did something inappropriate to a client multiple times during
a massage at one particular massage parlor.

Speaker 1 (20:06):
I'm not going to mention the name of it here.

Speaker 2 (20:08):
When later questioned by police about the incident, Wickland said
that he thought the victim was into it and admitted
that he crossed the line based on the mixed signals
mm hmmm. Wickland was offered a plea deal in the case.
They called for a day of execution on the twenty
four month prison sentence. Wickland was instead sentenced to sixty

(20:30):
days in the workhouse and was placed on probation for
three years, which ended in September of this year. What's
the overall under that he had like signs relating to
claiming that President Donald Trump was a sex offender just
out of curiosity. I wonder if he's who left the
talkback earlier today had a couple of those from a
foe of the show. At the time of his conviction,

(20:53):
Wickland was required to register as a predatory offender and
was ordered to attend a sex offender program. It's unclear
what Wickland is still under the requirement to register as
a predatory offender. Around the time of sentencing, Wickland announced
on social media that he was no longer taking massage
appointment so thanks for letting us know their dude, you're.

Speaker 1 (21:12):
Fascinating to talk to.

Speaker 2 (21:15):
He was focusing on other business areas, but he made
no mention of the criminal charge or conviction. According to
public records contained by the Secretary of State's website, Wickland
still owns this particular massage therapy location under a different name.
The state of Minneapolis does not require massage therapists to
be licensed, really, so like I could just go open

(21:39):
a massage. I can just go I'm a masseuse. Can
I call myself messuse? Or do you need a license
for that as well? The city of Minneapolis does have
a requirement that massage massage of businesses be licensed, but
no requirement that individual providers need to be licensed.

Speaker 1 (21:56):
So do you have to like give a massage to.

Speaker 2 (22:00):
The individual that issues the license to determine whether or
not you your good messups? Probably not the most important
aspect of this particular story. Recently, Wickland Larkland's Facebook social
media page has been filled with anti Trump messaging and
the promotion of the No King's protest events, and indicates
that he's holding weekly protests against Trump at the Victory

(22:23):
Memorial Parkway flagpole near his home and work. So you
want to go hang out with a potential sex offender
and alleged messuse, you can go and take part in
that as as well. All right, coming up, we do
have your talk back of the day and we'll get
into Minnesota's Minnesota's discovering the many ways in which the

(22:44):
historic trifecta in twenty twenty three has hit them in
the pocketbook for years.

Speaker 8 (22:50):
I just paid for my twenty twenty six tabs on
my ten year old vehicle. The few was only thirty dollars,
but then again, there was a text charge of two
twenty five, a whewitch tax of twenty, a filing fee
of eight dollars, and a local office surcharge of a dollar.

(23:11):
But if you pay through the mail, you don't have
to pay that local office surcharge.

Speaker 2 (23:17):
Whoop Twin Cities News Talk Am eleven thirty one oh
three five FM, final segment four Thursday tomorrow.

Speaker 1 (23:35):
On the show.

Speaker 2 (23:37):
Max Rymer is out again, I know, so back in studio.

Speaker 1 (23:44):
Ak Kamar will be joining us, and.

Speaker 2 (23:46):
Also the Salt and Pepper of Minnesota Podcasting, Catherine Johnson
and Grace Keating will both be in studio once again
for a Freedom Friday. And of course you're on and
off topic comments all morning long. Today's been a little
bit of a preview of that. I very much appreciate
all your comments. It is time to get to your
talkback of the day, brought to you by Mini Leaf.

(24:07):
Mini leaf means quality. Head on over to m I
n N E l e AF dot com and check
out all of their amazing products. Here is your talkback
of the day.

Speaker 5 (24:19):
Hey Don, great show as always, you said, do do
I know you caught it?

Speaker 2 (24:28):
I have a great day, I did. I'm a child.
I may be fifty three.

Speaker 1 (24:37):
I think I'm fifty three. When you get older, you
just you do it. You want to forget. I think
I'm fifty three.

Speaker 2 (24:43):
Mentally, I don't think I've really maentured beyond the age
of sixteen. Thank you for the comment from the iart
radio app here on Twin City's News Talking Again. That's
Talkback of the Day is brought to you by minileaf
and minileaf dot com.

Speaker 4 (24:56):
So this weekend, I was watching unchill Ldrin's YouTube channel
with my son Okay, who is called Milo wind Ship
all right, and it's a bunch of guys that are
playing a game Minecraft, and every single advertisement that popped
up was an anti Trump attack ad accusing the president

(25:17):
of lying.

Speaker 1 (25:18):
And this is being targeted at five year olds.

Speaker 2 (25:21):
Will technically it's being targeted at you. You just happen
to be there with the five year old. They assume
that the children's YouTube channel is going to be monitored
by parents as well. I understand what you're saying, and
make no mistake, they're trying to get to individuals as

(25:41):
young as they possibly can. But also the mentality here,
just from a marketing standpoint, would be this is also
targeted to the parents that are watching along with you.
Let's go here, John Feeland, American Experiment. Minnesotans will be
discovering the many history could trifecta twenty the many ways
the historic trifecta of twenty twenty three hit them in

(26:04):
the pocketbook, and you'll be dealing with this for years.
Not only did the DFL blow through a budget serplus
of eighteen billion, but it hiked to taxes and fees
by another ten billion and what was already one of
the most highly taxed states in America. Walls doesn't like
to go and tout that particular data point relating to
the livability of Minnesota. So back in February of twenty three,

(26:25):
it was written that one particular bill that was introduced
included Governor Tim walls proposed to transportation budget for the
next two years. The provision that would raise the license
tab of fee in the first year of a car's
life by basing the tax on one hundred and sixty
percent of the manufacturers suggested retail price. Democrats are playing

(26:49):
games with the depreciation schedule in order to make dubious claims.
And again this goes back to February of twenty three
that the measure is actually a tax cut, as the
tax rate remains unchanged while the minimum tax that was
introduced by five dollars per year. So those changes took
effect for the calendar year of twenty twenty four. But

(27:12):
the tab fee increase is make no mistake, a sixty
percent tax hike in year one and more hikes in
years two through ten of now that which we are
moving through. The tax increase will add hundreds of dollars
to the cost of middle class ownership at a time

(27:33):
of record state budget surpluses. The cost of owning a
forty thousand dollars car would go up by nearly eight
hundred dollars. This amount is in addition to the thousands
of dollars in taxes and fees you pay for just
just to drive the car off the off the lot. Honestly,

(27:54):
I never looked at the breakdown or anything but my
thirteen year old car I'm paying your bucks or tabs
on me.

Speaker 1 (28:04):
Now, maybe I'm going something wrong.

Speaker 2 (28:06):
So Center of the American Experiment tried to fight this
with the don't jack the tax campaign, not successful. Unfortunately,
the measure became law with support from about every single Democrat,
including those moderates that we always hear talked about. So
last week on Channel five, Tom Hauser producer report titled
wonder why your license tab fees aren't going away?

Speaker 1 (28:29):
Here's why?

Speaker 2 (28:30):
Wherein they say, like many Minnesotans who owned vehicles less
than five years old, you've noticed your license tabs are
not decreasing in cost every year like they did in
the past as your vehicle ages.

Speaker 1 (28:45):
So I just can't get my head around it.

Speaker 2 (28:46):
I don't understand understand the mat, said one car owner,
expressing frustration. The state records showed that the state portion
of this individual's tab fees has stayed the same three
hundred and ninety eight dollars in twenty four and twenty five,
and for tabs he's already purchased for twenty six. Tab
fees used to tumble down pretty dramatically as the car aged,

(29:07):
and I'm not seeing that anymore, says Scott Lambert of
the Minnesota Auto Dealers Association spot checking dozens of late
model vehicles using an online tool through the Minnesota Driver
and Vehicle Services website. It allows you to see the
cost of tabs for any vehicle by simply entering the
license plate number. No information about the owner pops up,

(29:28):
just the tab cost. And what they found is that
most vehicles purchased in twenty twenty are paying higher tab
fees than before, and they're either not going down at
all or very little. So what is causing this hit
of affordability for Minnesotan's well. In twenty twenty three of
the DFL controlled Minnesota legislature approved the new formula for
determining the license tab fees for vehicles initially registered before

(29:51):
November sixteenth to twenty twenty. The tax rate for tab
fees increased from one point two five to one point
fivey four, with the starting point being the manufacturer suggested
retail price. So if you're registered your vehicle for the
first time after November sixteenth of twenty twenty, the rate
fee went up from one point two to one point

(30:11):
five respectively. At the same time, the legislatures loaded the
pace at which your vehicle depreciates. Instead of it going
down ten percent per year for the first year, your
vehicle's value now goes down five percent per year. It's
so nefarious. Can I just say that? I mean, it's
like borderline evil, the way in which Democrats take money

(30:33):
from you. So in your third year of ownership, your
vehicle has only depreciated ten percent, and the state taxes
you as if your vehicle is worth ninety percent of
its original value. It doesn't start going down ten percent
per year until the fourth year. Meanwhile, the Kelly Bluebook,
the Bible if you will, of car valuations, estimates the

(30:54):
average vehicle depreciates about forty percent in the first three
years the new law and formula for licensed tab fees
written to effect on January first of twenty twenty one.
What vehicle owners are seeing, says Lambert of Themada, is
their number isn't decreasing the way that it used to.

(31:15):
A three year old car seems like an old car,
but its taxes are the same. It's just not right now,
of course it's not right, But elections have consequences. So
DFL Transportation Committee Chair Scott Dibble said this acknowledging that
the license tab fees are more expensive, especially for people
with newer or more expensive vehicles. Tab fees are more progressive.

(31:37):
In other words, they relate more closely with somebody's ability
to pay to the price of the car, and they
go down every year. That's what we call a depreciation schedule.
When they showed him the state records showing the vehicles
as old as six or seven years have tab fees
that aren't decreasing much, if at all, as they age,

(31:57):
he said the legislature was transparent about what would happen
in order to raise more money for roads and bridges.
I think it was pretty clear, he said, doing that
thing with my fingers.

Speaker 1 (32:10):
We had a lot of.

Speaker 2 (32:10):
Discussions, hearings and debate over how to broaden and diversify
the sources to pay for our roadway system. Really, did
you have a debate with Republicans at the time, because
I seem to recall during the trifecta that Democrats had
no interest whatsoever in hearing anything that Republicans had to say,
and even shut them out of a lot of committee
meetings as well.

Speaker 5 (32:28):
Something kind of interesting, great show talking about licensed plate
tabs out in Montana. After your car is ten years old,
you could pay one time fee. I think it's ninety
nine dollars for permanent plates, and after your car is
ten years old, you don't have to pay for plates ever.

Speaker 1 (32:46):
Again, that must be nice.

Speaker 2 (32:50):
It's unclear how many lawmakers and taxpayers knew that the
what the license tab changes would mean. They would have
if they had been following the particular news outlets like
American Experiment back in twenty twenty three. Bill glont had
concluded at the time, charging a fee based on property
value that you never saw would be considered fraud in

(33:10):
any other context. At the legislature, it's just considered a
clever lawyering. John Feelan wraps the piece up saying this
is one expensive Minnesota makes me laugh.

Speaker 1 (33:24):
I'm going to have to look into it.

Speaker 9 (33:25):
I think one state might bee Vermont, and I think
maybe more for South and Florida. You know they're station
with you can title your car and get your registration
through those states without paying Minnesota to the Sane tact
or on car stuff, they have no problem titling your
out of state car. And I'm going to look into
that more.

Speaker 10 (33:46):
I just purchased tabs on my twenty twenty four Ford
f one point fifty. They were eight hundred and sixty
two dollars and the lady behind the counter said they
won't be going down for ten years.

Speaker 1 (33:59):
What the heck, let's just got that's that is absolutely disgusting.
So quick, quick story.

Speaker 2 (34:06):
I don't think I'm going to be able to get
to my woman pushing for changes to state law regarding
certain e bikes. Maybe we'll do it tomorrow for a
for a freedom Friday. As I look at the clock
and the showtime ticks down, So I recently speaking of
tab and vehicle fees, right, just paid the registration for
my for Melenda's car.

Speaker 1 (34:27):
I don't know how I did this.

Speaker 2 (34:29):
I'm sure somebody can leave a talk back, maybe not
in time before the show's over. But I didn't think
I did anything different. I went through the I went
through the the website for the state, and somehow Melinda
got new plates in the mail with a new number.
I have no idea what they weren't like vanity plates.
We just we we got we got mail and I'm like,

(34:49):
these two like license plates? Why do we have license plates?
And I pulled them out and it was the new
registration and instead of just getting the stickers, we had
new plates.

Speaker 1 (34:58):
And they were they were a it was a whole
new number. I have no I don't know. I don't
know what I did.

Speaker 2 (35:03):
I have no clue now, granted I haven't looked into
it either. I probably end up ended up paying more
than I should have, and that's that's on me.

Speaker 11 (35:13):
Hey, John, I had my local DMB write a letter
to the state with my idea for tabs. They're completely pointless.

Speaker 12 (35:20):
You jump through the hoops.

Speaker 11 (35:22):
Yes, sir, I put that sticker on my car. All
you have to do is divide the amount of money
they make on tabs per year by the amount of
gallons of fuel they're sold. It should be about a
penny per gallon. Hopefully they raise the tax a penny
per gallon. The more you drive, the more you pay
into that fund. You never have to put that stupid
sticker on your car again.

Speaker 1 (35:41):
Yeah, I don't you make it. You make a really
good point. I will be back up further.

Speaker 2 (35:46):
Just the whole idea of having to reregister every year
and all of it at just completely well, it's unnecessary
in a lot of different ways.

Speaker 12 (35:58):
So this totally un realistic depreciation schedule to me, it
seems like I might be ripe for a lawsuit.

Speaker 1 (36:07):
To push back.

Speaker 12 (36:10):
Here's an idea, John, why don't.

Speaker 2 (36:13):
We Oh my apologies there, I didn't mean to stop
the talk back there mid mid comment. As we get
ready to wrap the show up this week, let's try again.

Speaker 12 (36:26):
Here's an idea, John, why don't we start taxing adults
on bicycles? Okay, requiring each bicycle to have a license.
Anybody over eighteen on a bike should be paying their
fair share for roads and upkeep.

Speaker 1 (36:47):
Yeah, this is thanks John.

Speaker 2 (36:48):
This has been an argument that's been put out before
the pushback and why it's never going to happen is
they'll say that, you know, bicycles aren't causing any damage
to the roadways.

Speaker 1 (36:58):
Clearly, nobody's ever seen me ride my mind out and bike.

Speaker 2 (37:05):
Get it, because that would mean like I rode my
bike poorly. Thanks for hanging out on the show today.
I appreciate it. If you missed any portion of today's broadcast,
be sure to check out the podcast that will be
available in short order up at the iHeartRadio app, And
if you haven't done so recently, be sure you update
the app. Take advantage of all of the new features

(37:28):
enhancing your listening enjoyment, and take advantage of the presets.
Do that right now as we wrap things up, make
Twin Cities News Talk number one on your presets. I'd
really appreciate it. Freedom Friday tomorrow with our in studio guests.
Enjoy the rest of your Thursday, and I'll talk to
you just after six am.

Speaker 1 (37:44):
Have a great one.

Speaker 2 (37:44):
Bye.