Vehicle tint laws for civilians vs government vehicles

[MOTOR51]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[thperez1972]

great argument bro.

It's good enough.

 

[Jstudz220]

Is it really legal to drive completely naked in your car? I can’t imagine that playing out well at all if someone decides to drive around butt naked and they are spotted by someone driving a higher sitting vehicle such as an 18 wheeler or maybe pulled over for a minor traffic infraction. I just can’t imagine that being legal without covering yourself in some manner but hey maybe I’m wrong.

 

[MOTOR51]

Is it really legal to drive completely naked in your car? I can’t imagine that playing out well at all if someone decides to drive around butt naked and they are spotted by someone driving a higher sitting vehicle such as an 18 wheeler or maybe pulled over for a minor traffic infraction. I just can’t imagine that being legal without covering yourself in some manner but hey maybe I’m wrong.

No it’s not. I didn’t want to ruin the surprise if he actually did it.

2017 Louisiana Laws :: Revised Statutes :: TITLE 14 - Criminal Law :: RS 14:106 - Obscenity

Justia Free Databases of US Laws, Codes & Statutes

law.justia.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Manimal]

Is it really legal to drive completely naked in your car? I can’t imagine that playing out well at all if someone decides to drive around butt naked and they are spotted by someone driving a higher sitting vehicle such as an 18 wheeler or maybe pulled over for a minor traffic infraction. I just can’t imagine that being legal without covering yourself in some manner but hey maybe I’m wrong.

Actually YES, it is completely legal to drive naked in most jurisdictions. It is *not legal to expose yourself to others*. That cited law does not restrict nudity or sex in a vehicle, and such a law is almost entirely unheard of throughout the nation.


---
To expand on my argument:
On April 6, 2020, the United States Supreme Court decided Kansas v. Glover. This ruling stated that is it reasonable to pull a vehicle over when running the plates reveals that the Owner's Driver's license is revoked, because it is "Clearly reasonable to assume that the Owner of a vehicle is the Driver of that vehicle, and people make that assumption every day."
~This negates the argument that "The driver with tinted windows may be a criminal", because the USSC concluded that it is safe to assume that the owner of a vehicle is the driver. If the plates do not come up with a criminal record there is no reason to assume that the person is a criminal, unless their behavior shows otherwise. Speeding may be considered criminal but, if it is then morally/ethically all cases of speeding are criminal, just look at the trouble that High Speed Chases cause...and we know that almost EVERY cop wants in on those. People are killed or injured as a result of High Speed Chases regularly, just look at BR this year as evidence.
~The Louisiana Law regarding tint states that "No person convicted of a violent crime or drug offense shall be permitted to have tint", and "Anyone with a tint exemption shall place a tag on their vehicle." This punishes ALL Louisiana residents, implying that they are not the vehicle owner, or that they are criminals, rather than forcing people convicted of violent crime and drug offenses to have a tag on their vehicle. They require an INNOCENT public to have the tag and go through hoops to get it. Are people OK with this also OK with having a "Gun owner", "Low IQ", "CHP Holder", "Off-duty officer", "Officer's Personal Vehicle" tag on their vehicle? You cant see those things when a person is in a vehicle, but they all can impact your safety. Not even 24hrs ago an Off Duty NYPD officer pulled a gun on someone as the officer suffered from a bout of Road Rage, and this is also not uncommon because *news flash* cops arent inherently good people, they are just people doing a job. I'm not OK with it, it's a bad law. Most people are not OK with things like this because they know it's actually wrong.
Cops who are OK with laws like this are the "constitutional conservative" and democrat cops that keep voting against Constitutional Carry, and of course they are often police union members. Their own "safety" above all...re Uvalde, plus they can teach CHP classes for profit and feel the privilege of carrying across the nation when we have to jump through hoops to never receive equal recognition of our Right to do so, even though the 2nd Amendment is so very clear.
There are a lot of laws that need to be eliminated or changed because they are based on cowardice and control, Tint laws are one example and CCW laws are another.

 

[thperez1972]

because *news flash* cops arent inherently good people, they are just people doing a job

Interesting. People are inherently good and shouldn't be assumed to be a criminal. Unless that person is a cop. Then they aren't inherently good.

 

[GunRelated]

Interesting. People are inherently good and shouldn't be assumed to be a criminal. Unless that person is a cop. Then they aren't inherently good.

I didn't gather this from his post. What I gathered is cops are people, just as citizens are people. Neither cops nor citizens are inherently good nor bad, it is the actions of people that determine these values and we are not to place anyone into a certain category before given proper reason.

 

[MOTOR51]

Actually YES, it is completely legal to drive naked in most jurisdictions. It is *not legal to expose yourself to others*. That cited law does not restrict nudity or sex in a vehicle, and such a law is almost entirely unheard of throughout the nation.


---
To expand on my argument:
On April 6, 2020, the United States Supreme Court decided Kansas v. Glover. This ruling stated that is it reasonable to pull a vehicle over when running the plates reveals that the Owner's Driver's license is revoked, because it is "Clearly reasonable to assume that the Owner of a vehicle is the Driver of that vehicle, and people make that assumption every day."
~This negates the argument that "The driver with tinted windows may be a criminal", because the USSC concluded that it is safe to assume that the owner of a vehicle is the driver. If the plates do not come up with a criminal record there is no reason to assume that the person is a criminal, unless their behavior shows otherwise. Speeding may be considered criminal but, if it is then morally/ethically all cases of speeding are criminal, just look at the trouble that High Speed Chases cause...and we know that almost EVERY cop wants in on those. People are killed or injured as a result of High Speed Chases regularly, just look at BR this year as evidence.
~The Louisiana Law regarding tint states that "No person convicted of a violent crime or drug offense shall be permitted to have tint", and "Anyone with a tint exemption shall place a tag on their vehicle." This punishes ALL Louisiana residents, implying that they are not the vehicle owner, or that they are criminals, rather than forcing people convicted of violent crime and drug offenses to have a tag on their vehicle. They require an INNOCENT public to have the tag and go through hoops to get it. Are people OK with this also OK with having a "Gun owner", "Low IQ", "CHP Holder", "Off-duty officer", "Officer's Personal Vehicle" tag on their vehicle? You cant see those things when a person is in a vehicle, but they all can impact your safety. Not even 24hrs ago an Off Duty NYPD officer pulled a gun on someone as the officer suffered from a bout of Road Rage, and this is also not uncommon because *news flash* cops arent inherently good people, they are just people doing a job. I'm not OK with it, it's a bad law. Most people are not OK with things like this because they know it's actually wrong.
Cops who are OK with laws like this are the "constitutional conservative" and democrat cops that keep voting against Constitutional Carry, and of course they are often police union members. Their own "safety" above all...re Uvalde, plus they can teach CHP classes for profit and feel the privilege of carrying across the nation when we have to jump through hoops to never receive equal recognition of our Right to do so, even though the 2nd Amendment is so very clear.
There are a lot of laws that need to be eliminated or changed because they are based on cowardice and control, Tint laws are one example and CCW laws are another.

Lol, if I see someone driving down I-12 naked I’m going to put them in jail. Your argument is silly but nice try. Please consult with an attorney.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[MOTOR51]

Actually YES, it is completely legal to drive naked in most jurisdictions. It is *not legal to expose yourself to others*. That cited law does not restrict nudity or sex in a vehicle, and such a law is almost entirely unheard of throughout the nation.


---
To expand on my argument:
On April 6, 2020, the United States Supreme Court decided Kansas v. Glover. This ruling stated that is it reasonable to pull a vehicle over when running the plates reveals that the Owner's Driver's license is revoked, because it is "Clearly reasonable to assume that the Owner of a vehicle is the Driver of that vehicle, and people make that assumption every day."
~This negates the argument that "The driver with tinted windows may be a criminal", because the USSC concluded that it is safe to assume that the owner of a vehicle is the driver. If the plates do not come up with a criminal record there is no reason to assume that the person is a criminal, unless their behavior shows otherwise. Speeding may be considered criminal but, if it is then morally/ethically all cases of speeding are criminal, just look at the trouble that High Speed Chases cause...and we know that almost EVERY cop wants in on those. People are killed or injured as a result of High Speed Chases regularly, just look at BR this year as evidence.
~The Louisiana Law regarding tint states that "No person convicted of a violent crime or drug offense shall be permitted to have tint", and "Anyone with a tint exemption shall place a tag on their vehicle." This punishes ALL Louisiana residents, implying that they are not the vehicle owner, or that they are criminals, rather than forcing people convicted of violent crime and drug offenses to have a tag on their vehicle. They require an INNOCENT public to have the tag and go through hoops to get it. Are people OK with this also OK with having a "Gun owner", "Low IQ", "CHP Holder", "Off-duty officer", "Officer's Personal Vehicle" tag on their vehicle? You cant see those things when a person is in a vehicle, but they all can impact your safety. Not even 24hrs ago an Off Duty NYPD officer pulled a gun on someone as the officer suffered from a bout of Road Rage, and this is also not uncommon because *news flash* cops arent inherently good people, they are just people doing a job. I'm not OK with it, it's a bad law. Most people are not OK with things like this because they know it's actually wrong.
Cops who are OK with laws like this are the "constitutional conservative" and democrat cops that keep voting against Constitutional Carry, and of course they are often police union members. Their own "safety" above all...re Uvalde, plus they can teach CHP classes for profit and feel the privilege of carrying across the nation when we have to jump through hoops to never receive equal recognition of our Right to do so, even though the 2nd Amendment is so very clear.
There are a lot of laws that need to be eliminated or changed because they are based on cowardice and control, Tint laws are one example and CCW laws are another.

You make a lot of assumptions about LEOs. You are wrong to think that cops love pursuits but you would know more about it that me I guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[T-boy]

Lol, if I see someone driving down I-12 naked I’m going to put them in jail. Your argument is silly but nice try. Please consult with an attorney.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Can't have ANY fun with you around! lol

 

[MOTOR51]

Can't have ANY fun with you around! lol

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[AustinBR]

*In theory a car is an extension of your home, general so legally, and people are certainly allowed privacy in their own home. A person can drive naked lawfully on a public road, but they cannot lawfully show their naked bodies off to people without consent or "disturb the peace". If a person wanted to lawfully drive naked on public roads they would need window tint, to lawfully live freely and in the pursuit of their happiness. That likewise applies to having sex in a vehicle, where the act is not illegal but the right to engage in it is hindered by laws that restrict access to privacy or otherwise put limitations on the right.

Even though I wasn't actually saying it was unconstitutional, it is or would be found to be if pressed and in a just world.
What I was really saying is that liberals say that "No one needs an assault weapon...except for the police and military!", and that is no different than someone saying, "Law enforcement needs tint, but the public does not." The only way we can get rid of this liberal and woke ideology, and repair the Nation, is if we are philosophically sound and sincere, even when we may not like or agree with some things. I hate window tint 99% of the time, but using it as an excuse to probe people is weak sauce and so is making someone jump through hoops to have it lawfully.

The above is completely and utterly false. Your vehicle is not an extension of your home. Hard stop.

 

[MOTOR51]

The above is completely and utterly false. Your vehicle is not an extension of your home. Hard stop.

Don’t ruin his fantasy. He’s on a roll


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Fordfella]

Farmers are generally exempt as well. Which I'm opposed to. If I have to wear a seatbelt in my car, those farmers should have to wear one on their tractors. What makes them such a special class? Talk about rules for thee but not for me.

Don't have to wear a seatbelt in the pasture, whether on a tractor or in my truck. Tractors don't have turn signals, brake lights, inspection stickers, don't have to pass crash tests. I've operated farm equipment with tires in such bad shape that it wouldn't be allowed on the road. I've operated farm equipment you couldn't drive on the road (Dad had a Farmall F-12 on dual steel wheels). Cars before the 60's or so didn't even have seat belts. You're argument isn't valid.

 

[thperez1972]

I didn't gather this from his post. What I gathered is cops are people, just as citizens are people. Neither cops nor citizens are inherently good nor bad, it is the actions of people that determine these values and we are not to place anyone into a certain category before given proper reason.

Really? Is that what you got from his post? That he's not placing all cops in a certain category?

"just look at the trouble that High Speed Chases cause...and we know that almost EVERY cop wants in on those."

Saying EVERY cop (or even the majority of cops) isn't placing cops in a certain category? I doubt he has seen the actions of EVERY cop.

"Not even 24hrs ago an Off Duty NYPD officer pulled a gun on someone as the officer suffered from a bout of Road Rage, and this is also not uncommon because *news flash* cops arent inherently good people, they are just people doing a job. "

Saying it's common for cops to pull guns on people because of road rage? Unless those same numbers can be translated to all people doing their job, he's again putting cops in a certain category.

 

[thperez1972]

Don't have to wear a seatbelt in the pasture, whether on a tractor or in my truck.

It has repeatedly been stated that traffic laws don't generally apply to vehicles driven on private property.

Tractors don't have turn signals, brake lights, inspection stickers, don't have to pass crash tests. I've operated farm equipment with tires in such bad shape that it wouldn't be allowed on the road. I've operated farm equipment you couldn't drive on the road (Dad had a Farmall F-12 on dual steel wheels). Cars before the 60's or so didn't even have seat belts. You're argument isn't valid.

It wasn't meant to be valid. It was meant to be hyperbole.

 

[GunRelated]

Really? Is that what you got from his post? That he's not placing all cops in a certain category?

"just look at the trouble that High Speed Chases cause...and we know that almost EVERY cop wants in on those."

Saying EVERY cop (or even the majority of cops) isn't placing cops in a certain category? I doubt he has seen the actions of EVERY cop.

"Not even 24hrs ago an Off Duty NYPD officer pulled a gun on someone as the officer suffered from a bout of Road Rage, and this is also not uncommon because *news flash* cops arent inherently good people, they are just people doing a job. "

Saying it's common for cops to pull guns on people because of road rage? Unless those same numbers can be translated to all people doing their job, he's again putting cops in a certain category.

Saying that most cops enjoy participating in high speed chases is not saying they are good or bad. I'm sure there is quite the adrenaline rush that accompanies a high speed chase, so I honestly don't disagree with this statement.

I'm not aware of any specific statistics relating to the second statement but I will comment on my perceived intention of it. While saying something is 'not uncommon' would technically have it viewed as being 'common', context is important. When context is taken into account, I personally view it as saying "these things happen more often than most may be aware of".

Also, I don't believe that statement was tethered to that specific road rage incident but more of a blanket statement, covering various criminal assault and other crimes committed by LEOs.

 

[thperez1972]

Saying that most cops enjoy participating in high speed chases is not saying they are good or bad. I'm sure there is quite the adrenaline rush that accompanies a high speed chase, so I honestly don't disagree with this statement.

"Speeding may be considered criminal but, if it is then morally/ethically all cases of speeding are criminal, just look at the trouble that High Speed Chases cause...and we know that almost EVERY cop wants in on those. People are killed or injured as a result of High Speed Chases regularly, just look at BR this year as evidence."

I would have to respectfully disagree. Saying that EVERY cop wants to be in on a criminal act that leads to death or injury isn't a neutral statement.

I'm not aware of any specific statistics relating to the second statement but I will comment on my perceived intention of it. While saying something is 'not uncommon' would technically have it viewed as being 'common', context is important. When context is taken into account, I personally view it as saying "these things happen more often than most may be aware of".

Also, I don't believe that statement was tethered to that specific road rage incident but more of a blanket statement, covering various criminal assault and other crimes committed by LEOs.

So various criminal assaults and other crimes committed by LEO is common? And that's a neutral statement?

 

[GunRelated]

"Speeding may be considered criminal but, if it is then morally/ethically all cases of speeding are criminal, just look at the trouble that High Speed Chases cause...and we know that almost EVERY cop wants in on those. People are killed or injured as a result of High Speed Chases regularly, just look at BR this year as evidence."

I would have to respectfully disagree. Saying that EVERY cop wants to be in on a criminal act that leads to death or injury isn't a neutral statement.



So various criminal assaults and other crimes committed by LEO is common? And that's a neutral statement?

"almost every" is not "every"

In general, crimes committed by LEOs are not uncommon and surely there are many that go unreported or that don't get caught.
I thought I clarified my perception of his statement fairly well. Maybe he could have used different wording but the message, the way I perceived it, does not group all cops as good or bad.

 

[M_Lee]

Actually YES, it is completely legal to drive naked in most jurisdictions. It is *not legal to expose yourself to others*. That cited law does not restrict nudity or sex in a vehicle, and such a law is almost entirely unheard of throughout the nation.


---
To expand on my argument:
On April 6, 2020, the United States Supreme Court decided Kansas v. Glover. This ruling stated that is it reasonable to pull a vehicle over when running the plates reveals that the Owner's Driver's license is revoked, because it is "Clearly reasonable to assume that the Owner of a vehicle is the Driver of that vehicle, and people make that assumption every day."
~This negates the argument that "The driver with tinted windows may be a criminal", because the USSC concluded that it is safe to assume that the owner of a vehicle is the driver. If the plates do not come up with a criminal record there is no reason to assume that the person is a criminal, unless their behavior shows otherwise. Speeding may be considered criminal but, if it is then morally/ethically all cases of speeding are criminal, just look at the trouble that High Speed Chases cause...and we know that almost EVERY cop wants in on those. People are killed or injured as a result of High Speed Chases regularly, just look at BR this year as evidence.
~The Louisiana Law regarding tint states that "No person convicted of a violent crime or drug offense shall be permitted to have tint", and "Anyone with a tint exemption shall place a tag on their vehicle." This punishes ALL Louisiana residents, implying that they are not the vehicle owner, or that they are criminals, rather than forcing people convicted of violent crime and drug offenses to have a tag on their vehicle. They require an INNOCENT public to have the tag and go through hoops to get it. Are people OK with this also OK with having a "Gun owner", "Low IQ", "CHP Holder", "Off-duty officer", "Officer's Personal Vehicle" tag on their vehicle? You cant see those things when a person is in a vehicle, but they all can impact your safety. Not even 24hrs ago an Off Duty NYPD officer pulled a gun on someone as the officer suffered from a bout of Road Rage, and this is also not uncommon because *news flash* cops arent inherently good people, they are just people doing a job. I'm not OK with it, it's a bad law. Most people are not OK with things like this because they know it's actually wrong.
Cops who are OK with laws like this are the "constitutional conservative" and democrat cops that keep voting against Constitutional Carry, and of course they are often police union members. Their own "safety" above all...re Uvalde, plus they can teach CHP classes for profit and feel the privilege of carrying across the nation when we have to jump through hoops to never receive equal recognition of our Right to do so, even though the 2nd Amendment is so very clear.
There are a lot of laws that need to be eliminated or changed because they are based on cowardice and control, Tint laws are one example and CCW laws are another.

Not true. I speak from experience.
I was a cop in south Texas, municipal and county deputy. Two major highways ran through the county. Pipelines of drugs, money and human trafficking. Needless to say pursuits were fairly commonplace and I was in on a my share of them, whether ones that started from a stop I was trying to make or me assisting another cop/agency. I didn't like them. They can be downright scary a** madness to be a part of, but there was a bad dude on the other end of it and they needed to be stopped, and on a couple of occasions the bad guy got away because they just plain didn't give a damn if they killed somebody and we had to cut it off to avoid a wreck. Yeah, your adrenaline is off the hook when you do it and I remember sometimes shaking like I had buck fever when they were over. I recall one I assisted in, in a neighboring county where the deputy pulled alongside the car and a deputy riding shotgun shot out the tires with buckshot. Sam Pekinpah movie style stuff, though they don't fragment and such like in the movies. The tires just went flat. Looked surreal, but it ended the pursuit and a violent wanted felony suspect went to jail.