You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #60: That's not correct. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-12-11 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #56
60. That's not correct.
California law requires that cars either be registered or have a "non-op" permit. Non-op's are cheap, are sufficient if the car isn't used on the road, and they DO NOT require car insurance.

I have an ancient Chevy C-10 collecting rust on the backside of my property. It runs fine, and I keep a non-op active on it just in case I ever want to sell it or register it for road use again. It costs $16 bucks a year, but that beats paying for overdue registration and late fees. I can drive it around private property all I want with a non-op, but will get ticketed the moment I try to take it on a roadway.

It does NOT have to be insured.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC