Vehicle tint laws for civilians vs government vehicles

[thperez1972]

You know, it's a little insulting, if I'm honest. If you look up nearly any department's Facebook page in the area, you will find pictures of them showing off their nice cruisers with blacked out windows. Some of them displayed prominently and proudly at the top of the page.

Rules for thee but not for me.

You can apply for a security exemption. The law that covers that exemption is LA R.S. 32:361.3 Security exemption. All of those cruisers with blacked out windows fall under a security exception. The law that covers that exemption is LA R.S. 32:361.3 Security exemption. So the rule for you is 361.3 and the rule for them is 361.3. The rule that allows for the cruisers to have blacked out windows is the same rule that allows for you to have blacked out windows.

http://www.lsp.org/pdf/windowtintexemption-security.pdf

 

[AdvancedLaser]

You know, it's a little insulting, if I'm honest. If you look up nearly any department's Facebook page in the area, you will find pictures of them showing off their nice cruisers with blacked out windows. Some of them displayed prominently and proudly at the top of the page.

Rules for thee but not for me.

So call your legislator then. They are the ones that make agency vehicles exempt from the tint laws. 32:361.1 (c)(4) and 32:361.3(b)

 

[GunRelated]

You can apply for a security exemption. The law that covers that exemption is LA R.S. 32:361.3 Security exemption. All of those cruisers with blacked out windows fall under a security exception. The law that covers that exemption is LA R.S. 32:361.3 Security exemption. So the rule for you is 361.3 and the rule for them is 361.3. The rule that allows for the cruisers to have blacked out windows is the same rule that allows for you to have blacked out windows.

http://www.lsp.org/pdf/windowtintexemption-security.pdf

We have already had multiple people say that they applied for this and other exemptions, only to be denied. All of those people were more "qualified" for exemptions than myself and were still denied. On the other hand, police cruisers are basically automatically given the exemption with no application needed.

Rules for thee but not for me

Again, there should be no need exemptions.

 

[GunRelated]

So call your legislator then. They are the ones that make agency vehicles exempt from the tint laws. 32:361.1 (c)(4) and 32:361.3(b)

We all know this would go absolutely nowhere, unless, maybe, more people felt as I do about being treated equally when it comes to this subject.
The point of this thread was to have a discussion about how/why the law is not equally applied when it comes to civilian vehicles vs government vehicles. So far, I have not received any valid argument for it. All we got is, government employees have valid uses for it, become a cop and you'll get extra perks, which is total nonsense.

 

[AdvancedLaser]

We have already had multiple people say that they applied for this and other exemptions, only to be denied. All of those people were more "qualified" for exemptions than myself and we're still denied. On the other hand, police cruisers are basically automatically given the exemption with no application needed.

Rules for thee but not for me

Again, there should be no need exemptions.

Guess I shouldnt mention the USPS delivery drivers are exempt from seat belts when they are delivering then ?

 

[GunRelated]

Guess I shouldnt mention the USPS delivery drivers are exempt from seat belts when they are delivering then ?

Another ridiculous law that mandates something that is no one else's business.

 

[DBMJR1]

I never objected to GOV's having dark tint. I think that's great, if it enhances the mission. They should also have head lights that retract revealing chain guns, rocket launchers, directed EMP devices, and a cool ejection seat for the passenger that likes to fiddle with knobs.

 

[GunRelated]

A coworker saw a buddy of his, who is a local LEO, sitting in his unit. I noticed his windows were tinted, but not too dark, maybe a shade less than legal. This is a regular street patrol officer. I had coworker ask him why his windows were only lightly tinted. The answer :

"It's not my unit, but when I get the money, I will have them darkened."

I wonder if his cruiser falls under the security exemption?

Of course it does, they all do.

Next...

 

[thperez1972]

We have already had multiple people say that they applied for this and other exemptions, only to be denied. All of those people were more "qualified" for exemptions than myself and we're still denied. On the other hand, police cruisers are basically automatically given the exemption with no application needed.

Rules for thee but not for me

Again, there should be no need exemptions.

"More qualified than you" does not make a logical argument. A comparison does not indicate anything absolute about either thing being compared. A fly is larger than an ant but very few people would label a fly as a large animal. Police cruisers are given an exception automatically because their job would qualify them if an application were completed.

Repeating the thing about different rules does not make the rules different. It's still the same rule for everyone. If you qualify, you get the exemption. But if you don't believe in any exemptions, get your windows tinted. If you're pulled over and given a ticket, you can fight it and maybe you will change (fix?) the law.

 

[thperez1972]

Guess I shouldnt mention the USPS delivery drivers are exempt from seat belts when they are delivering then ?

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.

 

[Magdump]

Do you believe that anything that anyone does in public is fair game for everyone?

If not immoral or a danger to anyone, yes.
Let’s all be honest here. There are 50 shades of tint (so to speak) between what I keep reading as the opposition and what is considered legal for the average Joe. I keep reading ‘blacked out’ and ‘limo’ and I do see many vehicles with extremely dark rear glass and back seat windows, but illegal starts way before that for the front seat windows. Legal is a shade that doesn’t offer any real benefit (eye relief, combatting skin cancer, heat buildup, protecting interior) although there have been strides in UV blockers. Also, why is it illegal to go one shade darker? We all know why. So some select people are able to have a clear view into the front seat. I remember when the chrome tints hit the market and were considered illegal by many ordinances although they weren’t darker than plain legal tint. That was because why? Because it hindered the ability for select people to see into the front seat so no workarounds allowed.
So I think we can all say that the entire argument in this case (on the side against) boils down to privacy issues. Not safety issues. Show me some special training that helps those allowed dark tint to be able to drive safer if that is thought to be the case. If it is for ‘officer safety’ against ‘the bad guy’ then someone has gone and grouped every good, law abiding citizen wanting darker tint with violent and scary criminals. Personally, as it stands, as much as I feel darker tint would benefit me, I wouldn’t want it if it caused any LEO to be afraid. I Don’t even want a frightened LEO approaching my car. You never know what a scared person with a gun might do and I may have my family in the car. Also, having tint that is darker than legal is very much a flag for scrutiny. I don’t want to be pulled over and have frighted cops approaching my car on a regular basis because I don’t like playing the odds. I don’t want a cop simply looking at my car and thinking I might be a dangerous criminal.

Outlawing tint that you can’t easily see through is far easier than changing tactics for approaching a car.
So, no dark tint because we want to see you. Tell me I’m wrong.

 

[GunRelated]

If not immoral or a danger to anyone, yes.
Let’s all be honest here. There are 50 shades of tint (so to speak) between what I keep reading as the opposition and what is considered legal for the average Joe. I keep reading ‘blacked out’ and ‘limo’ and I do see many vehicles with extremely dark rear glass and back seat windows, but illegal starts way before that for the front seat windows. Legal is a shade that doesn’t offer any real benefit (eye relief, combatting skin cancer, heat buildup, protecting interior) although there have been strides in UV blockers. Also, why is it illegal to go one shade darker? We all know why. So some select people are able to have a clear view into the front seat. I remember when the chrome tints hit the market and were considered illegal by many ordinances although they weren’t darker than plain legal tint. That was because why? Because it hindered the ability for select people to see into the front seat so no workarounds allowed.
So I think we can all say that the entire argument in this case (on the side against) boils down to privacy issues. Not safety issues. Show me some special training that helps those allowed dark tint to be able to drive safer if that is thought to be the case. If it is for ‘officer safety’ against ‘the bad guy’ then someone has gone and grouped every good, law abiding citizen wanting darker tint with violent and scary criminals. Personally, as it stands, as much as I feel darker tint would benefit me, I wouldn’t want it if it caused any LEO to be afraid. I Don’t even want a frightened LEO approaching my car. You never know what a scared person with a gun might do and I may have my family in the car. Also, having tint that is darker than legal is very much a flag for scrutiny. I don’t want to be pulled over and have frighted cops approaching my car on a regular basis because I don’t like playing the odds. I don’t want a cop simply looking at my car and thinking I might be a dangerous criminal.

Outlawing tint that you can’t easily see through is far easier than changing tactics for approaching a car.
So, no dark tint because we want to see you. Tell me I’m wrong.

They wouldn't do something like that. Shame on you for thinking your government is concerned so much about restricting your privacy that they would make up laws that they sell as being for our safety in order to know what you're up to.
What on earth would possibly give anyone that idea?

 

[GunRelated]

"More qualified than you" does not make a logical argument. A comparison does not indicate anything absolute about either thing being compared. A fly is larger than an ant but very few people would label a fly as a large animal. Police cruisers are given an exception automatically because their job would qualify them if an application were completed.

Repeating the thing about different rules does not make the rules different. It's still the same rule for everyone. If you qualify, you get the exemption. But if you don't believe in any exemptions, get your windows tinted. If you're pulled over and given a ticket, you can fight it and maybe you will change (fix?) the law.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. People more qualified for exemptions than myself (according to the requirements for the exemptions), were unable to acquire the exemption they sought. Why would I apply for an exemption if I do not meet the requirements of said exemptions, especially knowing that people who do meet the requirements don't even get them sometimes?
I don't know what comparison you're talking about.

First it was only certain cruisers get the tint because their duties require it as opposed to normal/average cruisers. Now it's all of them.
Regardless of whether it is only some or all, it doesn't change the fact that if it is unsafe for one, then it is unsafe for all.
If I am putting the public at risk with tinted windows on my vehicle, then so is every government vehicle with tinted windows.

 

[TickleChain]

Same. Outside of a family emergency, there's not much in this world that care about enough to get in a hurry for.

Roger dat.
I tried rushing once. Didn't like it.

 

[TickleChain]

Podna, this thread is amazing.

That is all.

 

[Magdump]

I’m not ‘exceptionally familiar’ with window tint laws. I feel tinting the windshield is a bit much. I do think tinting the upper border has a true benefit FOR safety in that if dark enough, it can cover the gap left by visors when driving directly into blinding sunlight in the morning or evening.
I’m not willing to pay money to tint my car darker than legal only to have to pay more in the future for tickets and or removal.
I can definitely understand people breaking the law and tinting darker and taking their chances. I can’t understand someone admitting that they break the law and then saying that they support the law in the same conversation. But then, I don’t understand a lot of things to do with people.
I think any law that discriminates against the law abiding and automatically groups them into criminal category should be abolished.
I wonder how the average Joe would feel if, starting tomorrow, every stop was treated as a felony stop.

 

[sandman7925]

can you guys forget the tint for a few minuets and talk about these CRAZY BRIGHT HEADLIGHTS these newer trucks and cars are ridding around with... theses suckers are painful to pass, and dont dare flash them thinking they got there bright on, then they flash you back and burn your retinas!!!! I wish that was a law that was enforced!!!!

Agreed but it’s because the trucks have been leveled. From the factory the lights are angled down. People install lift/level kits and blind everyone. Wasn’t too bad with halogen lights but new LED headlights need to stay angled down.

 

[GunRelated]

I’m not ‘exceptionally familiar’ with window tint laws. I feel tinting the windshield is a bit much. I do think tinting the upper border has a true benefit FOR safety in that if dark enough, it can cover the gap left by visors when driving directly into blinding sunlight in the morning or evening.
I’m not willing to pay money to tint my car darker than legal only to have to pay more in the future for tickets and or removal.
I can definitely understand people breaking the law and tinting darker and taking their chances. I can’t understand someone admitting that they break the law and then saying that they support the law in the same conversation. But then, I don’t understand a lot of things to do with people.
I think any law that discriminates against the law abiding and automatically groups them into criminal category should be abolished.
I wonder how the average Joe would feel if, starting tomorrow, every stop was treated as a felony stop.

I reckon they might be forced to view things a bit differently, mmhmm

 

[thperez1972]

If not immoral or a danger to anyone, yes.
Let’s all be honest here. There are 50 shades of tint (so to speak) between what I keep reading as the opposition and what is considered legal for the average Joe. I keep reading ‘blacked out’ and ‘limo’ and I do see many vehicles with extremely dark rear glass and back seat windows, but illegal starts way before that for the front seat windows. Legal is a shade that doesn’t offer any real benefit (eye relief, combatting skin cancer, heat buildup, protecting interior) although there have been strides in UV blockers. Also, why is it illegal to go one shade darker? We all know why. So some select people are able to have a clear view into the front seat. I remember when the chrome tints hit the market and were considered illegal by many ordinances although they weren’t darker than plain legal tint. That was because why? Because it hindered the ability for select people to see into the front seat so no workarounds allowed.
So I think we can all say that the entire argument in this case (on the side against) boils down to privacy issues. Not safety issues. Show me some special training that helps those allowed dark tint to be able to drive safer if that is thought to be the case. If it is for ‘officer safety’ against ‘the bad guy’ then someone has gone and grouped every good, law abiding citizen wanting darker tint with violent and scary criminals. Personally, as it stands, as much as I feel darker tint would benefit me, I wouldn’t want it if it caused any LEO to be afraid. I Don’t even want a frightened LEO approaching my car. You never know what a scared person with a gun might do and I may have my family in the car. Also, having tint that is darker than legal is very much a flag for scrutiny. I don’t want to be pulled over and have frighted cops approaching my car on a regular basis because I don’t like playing the odds. I don’t want a cop simply looking at my car and thinking I might be a dangerous criminal.

Outlawing tint that you can’t easily see through is far easier than changing tactics for approaching a car.
So, no dark tint because we want to see you. Tell me I’m wrong.

"Immoral" and "danger to anyone" are rather subjective terms, wouldn't you agree? What would work better than to rely on individual morality would be some sort of agreed upon morality. In general, that is what laws are supposed to be.

I can't tell you that you are wrong. And I can't tell you that you are right. I will confess that I do not know the history behind the tint law.

With respect to privacy, a car is not an extension of your house. You have a much lower expectation of privacy in your car than you do in your house. The supreme court has repeatedly affirmed that.

 

[thperez1972]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. People more qualified for exemptions than myself (according to the requirements for the exemptions), were unable to acquire the exemption they sought. Why would I apply for an exemption if I do not meet the requirements of said exemptions, especially knowing that people who do meet the requirements don't even get them sometimes?
I don't know what comparison you're talking about.

First it was only certain cruisers get the tint because their duties require it as opposed to normal/average cruisers. Now it's all of them.
Regardless of whether it is only some or all, it doesn't change the fact that if it is unsafe for one, then it is unsafe for all.
If I am putting the public at risk with tinted windows on my vehicle, then so is every government vehicle with tinted windows.

Then don't apply. As I said, just tint your windows. Either you won't get a ticket, and you're all good, or you will, and then you can fight it and try to have the law changed.