Vehicle tint laws for civilians vs government vehicles

[thperez1972]

EVERYTHING that any form of government has: citizen's should be able ot legally have.

The difference here is when individuals commit crimes: impersonating an officer etc.

The founders did not intend on there being different classes of citizens: even though they had great class status benefits they were working for equality under a tyrant king. You cannot lose sight of this fact no matter how deep we analyze their lifestyles. Women, Slaves, and other social groups were believed to not be fit to engage in meaningful politics in those times. Of course this is absurd and false: however, this was a constraint of the time. The founders were marching in the direction to create Republic of free citizens, with accountability of government!

I agree. Down with the americans with disabilities act. Why should that class of people get special parking spaces? And have you seen the size of their public bathrooms? Talk about special privilege. But I agree with you that the ADA should be repealed.

 

[Jstudz220]

On the contrary, I would urge you to revisit the window tint laws for SUVs in Louisiana. SUVs and Trucks are allowed to have blacked out rear windshields and can have back seat windows tinted as dark as you would like.

Cars/Sedans are different.

I would also disagree that not being able to see out of a rear windshield is a safety risk. There is clearly a benefit in being able to see out of the rear windshield.

You can see basically the same benefits from a 35% ceramic tint and a 100% (or 90%) ceramic tint. Blacking out the windshield isn't safe.

As for your final point - easy: It's also unsafe to drive at 100 MPH down the highway, but LE vehicles are allowed to do so in some situations. They are legally allowed to accept that risk because the potential outcome outweighs the risk. The benefit of a regular average joe getting an unsafe tint does not outweigh the potential risks. If the average joe is not truly average, there are exception processes to be had.

I don’t think LE is allowed to drive 100mph at the majority of agencies which is why they often do not pursue high speed chases. It’s too much of a risk for themselves as well as the general public. It’s a lot safer to use the radio and helicopters to set up road spikes if applicable. I would disagree that the potential outcome outweighs the risk of driving that fast when they have other means of apprehension that are generally much safer.

 

[Jstudz220]

I agree. Down with the americans with disabilities act. Why should that class of people get special parking spaces? And have you seen the size of their public bathrooms? Talk about special privilege. But I agree with you that the ADA should be repealed.

What they should probably do is be a bit more strict on who they give out handicap parking passes too. It’s too common to see someone who looks perfectly fit hop out of a vehicle with no apparent physical disabilities. I understand we may not be able to see someone’s disability right away or with a quick encounter they may seem just fine however I’ve spoken to too many people who have said how easy it is to get one.

A couple years back my employer had to expand the amount of handicap parking spaces because of the amount of people that had the pass. These were younger fit men coming in every day doing a physical job and openly talking about how easy it was to get a handicap parking pass. Amazing they always passed their yearly physical and had no issues at work but were able to obtaining handicap parking.

 

[thperez1972]

I don’t think LE is allowed to drive 100mph at the majority of agencies which is why they often do not pursue high speed chases. It’s too much of a risk for themselves as well as the general public. It’s a lot safer to use the radio and helicopters to set up road spikes if applicable. I would disagree that the potential outcome outweighs the risk of driving that fast when they have other means of apprehension that are generally much safer.

I've seen policy that said 10 mph over the speed limit. Traverse intersection with care. Officer is responsible if a wreck occurs even if they had lights and sirens going.

Not all agencies have a helicopter. And for the ones that do, not all of those keep it in the air at all times. And spike strips are only practical in areas with few places to turn off of, like an interstate or some highways. Otherwise, it's a crap shoot to be able to guess that far in advance what route they will be taking in an area like a subdivision. I'm not saying 100 is a necessary speed. I'm just saying that the "other means of apprehension" may be limited at a lot of agencies.

 

[GunRelated]

You can legally get whatever tint you want on whatever window you want. The law does not cover your actions on your own property. The law only sets a standard for vehicles driven on public property.

Then those same laws should apply across the board for EVERY driver on public roads.

 

[GunRelated]

Neither are concealed carry or window tinting.

Government employees carry concealed as part of their job, citizens, as of now, are regulated by means of a permit and my previous comment covers the tint part.

 

[AustinBR]

EVERYTHING that any form of government has: citizen's should be able ot legally have.

The difference here is when individuals commit crimes: impersonating an officer etc.

The founders did not intend on there being different classes of citizens: even though they had great class status benefits they were working for equality under a tyrant king. You cannot lose sight of this fact no matter how deep we analyze their lifestyles. Women, Slaves, and other social groups were believed to not be fit to engage in meaningful politics in those times. Of course this is absurd and false: however, this was a constraint of the time. The founders were marching in the direction to create Republic of free citizens, with accountability of government!

So...citizens should be able to drive around all the time with flashy blue and red lights?

What about rocket launchers? Should billy bob down the street be able to buy the military's latest rocket launchers?

What about nukes? Should Elon be able to buy a few nukes if he wants?

 

[AustinBR]

Modern vehicles are often legally required to have airbags and a plethora of safety measures to protect the driver. They also are required to have headlights and brake lights to protect the general public.

On the same thought - modern vehicles are required to have glass that the average joe can see out of at all times of the night.

Darker tint prohibits that.

There will always be exceptions that are necessary to make LE's jobs easier. It's just the nature of it.

 

[MOTOR51]

I don’t think LE is allowed to drive 100mph at the majority of agencies which is why they often do not pursue high speed chases. It’s too much of a risk for themselves as well as the general public. It’s a lot safer to use the radio and helicopters to set up road spikes if applicable. I would disagree that the potential outcome outweighs the risk of driving that fast when they have other means of apprehension that are generally much safer.

I’ve never seen a speed cap. It all has to do with doing it with safety in mind. The radio is nice but when you are short handed it doesn’t work. The helicopter is nice when it’s in the air. The spike strips work great if you can guess where he’s going. Pursuits are a necessary evil sometimes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[thperez1972]

Then those same laws should apply across the board for EVERY driver on public roads.

They do. Everyone is covered by that law.

Government employees carry concealed as part of their job, citizens, as of now, are regulated by means of a permit and my previous comment covers the tint part.

Some government employees can carry concealed as part of their job. When they are not working, they are regulated by means of the law. And that could mean having to get a permit. For example, an agency or department may have a limited list of authorized off-duty carry weapons. For example, if department policy mandated a new york trigger on all glocks, that restriction would cover any weapon carried under the law covering law enforcement. The officer would need to obtain a permit if they wanted to carry something not on the authorized list.

 

[GunRelated]

So...citizens should be able to drive around all the time with flashy blue and red lights?

I'll finally bite on this and say yes. If some willful moron wants flashy lights and sirens, he should be able to put them on his vehicle. That same moron should also be charged when he uses those things to harass or cause harm. Sounds a lot like guns, am I right?

What about rocket launchers? Should billy bob down the street be able to buy the military's latest rocket launchers?

I'm just gonna half ass answer this and say people should be allowed to own whatever they want. Inanimate objects cause no harm, evil people do and evil people will find a way to cause harm, no matter the tool they use.

What about nukes? Should Elon be able to buy a few nukes if he wants?

In my opinion this is a different scenario because LE doesn't go around enforcing laws with nukes on their shoulders or in their vehicles.

Just realized I answered the questions in the quote

 

[thperez1972]

I’ve never seen a speed cap. It all has to do with doing it with safety in mind. The radio is nice but when you are short handed it doesn’t work. The helicopter is nice when it’s in the air. The spike strips work great if you can guess where he’s going. Pursuits are a necessary evil sometimes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I never saw it enforced but it was there (paragraph 14) in case they needed to get you.
"Vehicle operation will remain reasonable for the existing conditions (e.g., weather, roadway, traffic, pedestrian, police vehicle capability, etc.) and the officer will exercise due caution at all intersections by slowing and/or stopping prior to entering the intersection. However, in no case shall an officer exceed the posted speed limit by 10 MPH on an undivided street or 20 MPH on a divided highway (see La. RS 32:1 for definition of divided highway)."

https://www.nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/Policies/Chapter-41-4-1-Response-to-Police-Calls-EFFECTIVE-1-13-19-(1).pdf/

 

[GunRelated]

They do. Everyone is covered by that law.



Some government employees can carry concealed as part of their job. When they are not working, they are regulated by means of the law. And that could mean having to get a permit. For example, an agency or department may have a limited list of authorized off-duty carry weapons. For example, if department policy mandated a new york trigger on all glocks, that restriction would cover any weapon carried under the law covering law enforcement. The officer would need to obtain a permit if they wanted to carry something not on the authorized list.

No, they are not, hence the illegal tint being legal on government vehicles.

You are really splitting hairs here and it's not really going anywhere.

 

[AustinBR]

Just realized I answered the questions in the quote

It is already legal for the moron to put lights and sirens on his vehicle. He just cannot use them on a public roadway.

It is also legal for the same moron to full-tint his vehicle - again, he just can't operate it on a public roadway due to it being illegal because of safety concerns.

Stop signs, speed limits, and red lights are all safety devices that keep the driver and the public safe. Emergency vehicles are allowed exceptions related to these in order to execute their job (which also exists to protect/help the public). Should any John Doe also be allowed to ignore the speed limit, stop signs, and red lights just because emergency vehicles are allowed to do so?

Your argument doesn't hold up that just because LE can do something that others should be able to, too. These laws exist for a reason.

 

[thperez1972]

No, they are not, hence the illegal tint being legal on government vehicles.

You are really splitting hairs here and it's not really going anywhere.

No, not splitting hairs. That same law for window tinting applies to everyone. And there are exception in that law. One of them is for medical reasons. Should they not be an exception to the law?

 

[GunRelated]

It is already legal for the moron to put lights and sirens on his vehicle. He just cannot use them on a public roadway.

It is also legal for the same moron to full-tint his vehicle - again, he just can't operate it on a public roadway due to it being illegal because of safety concerns.

Stop signs, speed limits, and red lights are all safety devices that keep the driver and the public safe. Emergency vehicles are allowed exceptions related to these in order to execute their job (which also exists to protect/help the public). Should any John Doe also be allowed to ignore the speed limit, stop signs, and red lights just because emergency vehicles are allowed to do so?

Your argument doesn't hold up that just because LE can do something that others should be able to, too. These laws exist for a reason.

The difference between the tint and the lights/sirens, you have either one on your vehicle and not cause any harm to anyone else, but only one is legal to have and the other is not.

 

[GunRelated]

No, not splitting hairs. That same law for window tinting applies to everyone. And there are exception in that law. One of them is for medical reasons. Should they not be an exception to the law?

There should be no exemptions that are only offered specifically to one group of people.

 

[AustinBR]

The difference between the tint and the lights/sirens, you have either one on your vehicle and not cause any harm to anyone else, but only one is legal to have and the other is not.

Dark tint and lights/sirens are both legal to have on your vehicle so long as you don't drive on public roads OR you have a legal reason to have them on public roads.

Dark tint impairs vison. There is no argument to that. It makes it harder to see through glass. The law is there to prevent problems associated with people not being able to see as well through their glass: ie death or injury.

There are exceptions to that law just as most laws have exceptions.

 

[GunRelated]

Dark tint and lights/sirens are both legal to have on your vehicle so long as you don't drive on public roads OR you have a legal reason to have them on public roads.

Dark tint impairs vison. There is no argument to that. It makes it harder to see through glass. The law is there to prevent problems associated with people not being able to see as well through their glass: ie death or injury.

There are exceptions to that law just as most laws have exceptions.

You just got through saying that any moron can put lights on his vehicle and drive around as long as he doesn't use them. You can't put tint on a vehicle and not use it. Hence my post you just quoted

 

[GunRelated]

For the record, dark tint does not I pair my vision, and if it does, then it also impairs vision to any other person with it on their vehicle, including government vehicles.