factory tinted

May 27, 2007

not sure if this is true but I heard that porsches and upper end cars of the like come with 5% or 10% factory tint and since its from the factory then its legal. is this true or just a myth?
I dont understand the whole mpv thing. my car can have alot of purposes as well. why can mpvs have any % tint on the back windows. makes no sense. the whole purpose of tint laws is so officers wont get shot. well an suv or "mpv" can hold a heck of alot more people with alot more guns than a passenger car can. in my mind it should be the other way around!

tint laws blow! legally abiding good citizens should be able to get whatever tint they want!

My point exactly!!! All current "tint laws" are discriminatory! They single out and adversly affect only those who drive passenger cars. Why is it that our lawmakers feel that it is safer for a LEO to approach a van, truck, or SUV? Are people who drive Coupes and Sedans more prone to violence against LEO's than those who drive MPV's? And why the wide disparity in allowable VLT's? If Fla deems it safe for cars to have 28%, why do some states limit tint to 70% or nothing? I am not aware of ANY legit research that has established a minimum "safe VLT" for VEHICLES. I am also not aware of ANY statistics that prove tint laws make things any safer for LEOS. Nationwide, Fewer than 200 officers are injured as a result of traffic stops yearly. And of those injured, Most were injured by oncoming traffic, physical altercations, etc. Of the extremely small amount of LEO's injured during traffic stops by weapons, I would put money on the fact that proper procedeures weren't followed. The #1 most dangerous, unpredictable scenario a LEO faces is a domestic disturbance. The number of police getting injured/killed by weapons in ANY scenario is at the bottom of the list. Do a google on police mortality!

To claim that tint laws make things ANY safer for LEO's is preposterous. Show me one shred of evidence\research that proves it!!!

And for a state to make tint laws that apply to ALL who travel thier roads, regardless of state of registration is DIRECTLY contra to the constitution. The U.S. Interstate system is under FEDERAL jurisdiction, even tho the local law enforcement is responsible for enforcement. (Google THAT! use the Interstate commerce act!) How can one who follows the laws of thier state be held criminally liable just for passing thru another in the exercise of thier constitutionally guaranteed right to travel?

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%2...ivingRight.html

These cases\decisions have been upheld by the Supreme Courts in over 7 states!!! We (all law abiding citizens) have the RIGHT to travel UNHINDERED on the roads of our land, by using the conveyance of the day!! This applies to vehicles with window film also. One arguement the Gov't uses to justify motor vehicle laws is that our roads are "STATE" or "GOV'T" property, since they are built and maintianed with Gov't funds!!! And thus the Gov't has the right to regulate them. All the while forgetting that Gov't funds are TAX money. WE the people ultimately fund the roads, and the roads are there for our use and benefit, and belong to US!!

I see alot of people posting things like "I heard this...." or worse, stating things as outright fact, with nothing to back up the claim. And to just sit there and let the Gov't take away our rights because "they can" and we can do nothing is , well....SHEEPLE!! Just as the powers that be want it. Our system has become so convoluted that just gaining access to the courts to address a grievance is next to impossible without a lawyer. Government COUNTS on the fact that sheeple will take the path of least resistance, and not fight a 500.00 fine. It's easier and cheaper to just pay it. And by "just paying it", we reinforce thier ability to erode even more rights.

A good start would be for every tint shop in america to afford thier custys the opportuntity to sign a petition protesting tint laws. GUYS, GALS ! it's US they are legislating out of a job!!

To state that someone doing "ILLEGAL" tint will destroy our trade 'cuz "THEY will only outlaw tint or make the laws more stringent" only works if you assume that they have the ability to do so, when they patently do not. NO ONE, including the venerated IWFA has ever attacked tint laws on a constitutional basis. The Basic concept of or right to travel unhindered in the lawful excersise of our rights is a good starting point!! Yet no one will challenge it!! IF someone did, and won, they could recoup thier expenses.

Hell, I'm done ranting. This should get some interesting replies!!!!!