GA tint laws invalid

TINT · February 6, 2005

ok that does sound familar,
and I can't wait for the law to come back into effect. Just hope it is not ulgy restricting to 70 or 50%.

[*]255867

if you do welcome to the club.

February 16, 2005

GA law on its way Back :dunno

April 10, 2005

I have ALWAYS been of the opinion that tint laws are by thier very nature unconstitutional. How does a law enforcement officer enjoy protection under the constitution that would in any way negate my constitutional right to privacy? This probably needs its own thread.
Just because a man wants to be a cop (excuse me... LEO ) does not give him or the gov't the right to tell me what I can put on my vehicle to protect it. I HATE cutting myself, but I tint glass, I use razorblades. Its an occupational hazzard. Dont want to get shot at? dont be a cop. Or at least have back up when you pull someone over....

When a person spends money on the 2nd biggest investment, they have a right to protect that investment. They (we all) have a guaranteed right to privacy as well....

[*]254648

Seems you have forgotten that driving is not a constitutional right, but a given privilege by the government. Yes I think people should be able to put LIMITED tint, but it should be reasonable. Saying "dont want to get shot at dont be a cop" is a childish thing to say! Do you want a country of complete unrule without law enforcement? Whose going to do it (be a cop) then? NO ONE wants to get shot at.

Yes there are precausions for them to use, but my point is on your comment. Perhaps you don't like cops, I can tell you there have been times I feel that way too. But there are many officers that get into it because they truely want to help. "Or at least have back up when you pull someone over" thats not always possible. The county I used to work would get over 500 calls in a 12 hour shift. Now think how thined out manning is. And you know very well no one wants to pay more tax so they can hire the bodies they NEED to keep up with the call volume, so no back up is not feezable to have for each and every traffic stop.

Also on that line about gauranteed right to privacy, when you are in your car, its an extention of your home, but a LIMITED extention therefore you don't have the right to full privacy. You can't drive around n@ked, as you can be in your home so you don't have the same rights of privacy.

Finally, "How does a law enforcement officer enjoy protection under the constitution that would in any way negate my constitutional right to privacy". Because above all rights, freedoms and privileges, the government says national security supercedes freedom of speech. The same thing applies here.

July 22, 2005

Seems you have forgotten that driving is not a constitutional right, but a given privilege by the government.

[*]274606

Actually, you're wrong about that. You drank the magic kool-aid in driver's ed class and were successfully brainwashed into believing that driving was a privilege. It's not... the right to travel unimpeded on the highways and byways of the nation by any conveyance whatsoever is a constitutional right.

See explanation here:

http://reactor-core.org/drivers-license.html

July 23, 2005

Seems you have forgotten that driving is not a constitutional right, but a given privilege by the government.

[*]274606

Actually, you're wrong about that. You drank the magic kool-aid in driver's ed class and were successfully brainwashed into believing that driving was a privilege. It's not... the right to travel unimpeded on the highways and byways of the nation by any conveyance whatsoever is a constitutional right.

See explanation here:

http://reactor-core.org/drivers-license.html

[*]300460

:woowoo I believe many have drunk of that potion. :copcar

Good sfuff, Porter... thank you! :copcar

tint_detective · July 24, 2005

Also on that line about gauranteed right to privacy, when you are in your car, its an extention of your home, but a LIMITED extention therefore you don't have the right to full privacy. You can't drive around nek!d, as you can be in your home so you don't have the same rights of privacy.

[*]274606

Do you mean it's !llegal to drive around nek!d?

That sucks...it's really hot here and... well... I'm gonna keep doin it anyway. :duck

As for a cop not being able to see the occupants of a vehicle during a traffic stop, well they are not always going to have that luxury, depending on the type of vehicle. Even if they can be seen that's not going to keep them from running or shooting or being nek!d.

With the exeption of seeing them in the side mirror reflection of a work van or even some SUV's.

I say have the courtesy to roll the window down so you can be seen especially if you have !llegal tintz on you car.

Afterwards tell them to wipe their greasy finger prints off the

back of your freshly washed and waxed car.

July 26, 2005

Didn't I see a post on this site about more cops die by accident than by getting killed during a traffic stop? ... or something like that.

January 23, 2006

In case anyone reads this topic again:

The lady was driving under the influence and the officer used the tint law as a reason to stop her. She then hired a lawyer, who dr*g this case through the court system, trying to use the residency loop-hole to get her out of her DUI charge. In the end, the judge agreed with the residency issue, but she was still charged with DUI. So, she still payed for her DUI and the Georgia legislators 're-worded' the law to get it around the residency issue. However, the only legal way to structure the tint law was to change it's status from that of a moving violation law to a misdemeanor charge, and the law is the same percentage, net 32.

In my opinion, the amount of our TAX dollars and TIME wasted in the courts ( and the legislation 're-wording' the law ) would have been better spent on real criminal cases. She should have been charged for tying up our court system AND her DUI.