Window Tinting In Ga. Must Read!

[Mochamanz1]

I got frustrated reading all these "stop trampling my rights" comments ...



Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. As a privilege, it can be restricted my those granting that privilege. If you don't like it, you have 4 choices:



1) conform

2 don't conform

3) quit driving

4) move

IMHO, In this road dependent society, with no real public transportation for many, probably a majority of the people, this talk of privilege to drive is pure hogwash ! This "privilege" is a really an unprincipled rhetorical invention used to manipulate the situation that is perpetrated on the public of: lack of collective means of getting around, coupled with laws guaranteed to cause some of the public to accidental transgress against some trap. Calling a publicly taxed, necessary means of getting around a "privilege" is such a lie.....



I get fatigued and frustrated that this kind of talk about driving is a privilege is not roundly denounced by the citizens of this fine country.... Such a lie ! As long as the roads are publicly taxed , the public, not some agency granting a license is the rightful owner of that public property.... Sure you don't drive drunk, or recklessly, but many laws are simply revenue sources, like the cop lurking at the bottom of the hill.....:angry



Hmmm... this is post 666....oh my !

 

[imported_themightytimmah]

I got frustrated reading all these "stop trampling my rights" comments ...



Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. As a privilege, it can be restricted my those granting that privilege. If you don't like it, you have 4 choices:



1) conform

2 don't conform

3) quit driving

4) move

I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with that one. Rights and priviledges are both granted by the people, not lawmakers. They work for us, although it doesn't always seem that way. If we the people decided collectively tomorrow to enact a "right to drive" law, we sure as hell could.



/RantOn



Personally, I never agreed with the whole "driving as a priviledge" thing. It always seemed like a way for old people and middle-aged women to jerk the rest of us around.

In this state (Maine), we have a ton of dumb driving laws, because the Legislature decided that it would improve safety. Unfortuneatly, the laws are imposed mostly on minors, who cannot vote, and don't really count as "we the people". As a guy who just reached the age of majority, I'm not voting for any incumbents.



The way I see it, "safety" is a terrible argument to do anything. The world would be plenty safe if we banned cars, guns, alcohol, religion, tv, electricity, fire......but it certianly wouldn't be much fun. Hell, Communist France is pretty safe.



Not to start a flamewar, but attitudes (I don't blame you personally, hate the sin, love the sinner, ya know) like that are whats screwing up our country. It seems like no one wants to follow the Founding Father's plan on how to run things. I see government slowly becoming larger, more domineering, and more unnecessary. Seat belt laws, lawsuits against gun manufacturers, the war on drugs, all that endangered species BS, unreasonably low speed limits, bans on radar detectors, etc..... rational, fair people are being squeezed from both sides, left and right.



/RantOff



Yeah, I'm a bit of a Libertarian. Just a little .



To be a little more on topic, I also hate how you can't tint a front windshield. I don't like to wear sunglasses (feel kind of goofy), and I'd rather have 40% or so all around, than be able to have 20ish% abd a clear windshield.

 

[petraidm]

I knew my comments would spark some flames. However, just because you think driving is an inalienable right does not make it so! A right is something you are entitled to and a privilege is a right which has been granted to you … the operative word is granted. So yes, it is a right only because it has been granted … thus it is a privilege. People have blurred this distinction.



Now that we have established that it is a granted right (i.e., privilege) versus an inalienable right, the granter has the authority to restrict or qualify that right. If I take the position that they are infringing on my rights by passing this law then I should be able to use the same arguments to say any restriction / regulation violates my rights. In other words, I should have the right to drive whatever I want, wherever I want and however I want.



I’ll reiterate my original points … If you do not like these restrictions:

1. Conform to them anyway

2. Don’t conform (and suffer the consequence if caught)

3. Quit driving

4. Move



I’ll add a fifth … work to change the law.

 

[jjwalker]

here in texas, the front windows cant be less than 35% (only 25% to pass inspection) and you can have anything you want on the other windows. You can also have an "eyebrow" as long as it doesnt go more than 5 inches down the windshield, or pass the AS1 line.

 

[Sir Clean]

Lawmakers say driving is "privilege." It is such a condesending term. You would be surprised to see their "personal standards in life" considering those people are setting up the so-called "standards" which are above their levels.

 

[imported_sokoloff]

Also, the way the law reads states that your car doesn't need to be registered in GA. So in essence if you are just passing through you could be ticketed. Makes no sense to me.

Check article IV, section 1 of the Constitution before you get too worried about that... Basically, if your car is legally registered (including inspection, if needed) and conforms to the laws of your home state, GA has to respect that.

 

[Accumulator]

sokoloff- Welcome to Autopia!



Heh heh, while you're right about the "if your car ... conforms to the laws of your home state, GA has to respect that", I wouldn't try convincing a GA LEO in the middle of the night lest you want a, uhm, interesting tale to tell



I've been keeping my opinions to myself on this thread, but anybody (not just LEOs, but *anybody*) who's had to deal with "unknowns" in a darkly tinted car at night, should understand why this can be a life or death issue.

 

[Estranged]

sokoloff- Welcome to Autopia!



Heh heh, while you're right about the "if your car ... conforms to the laws of your home state, GA has to respect that", I wouldn't try convincing a GA LEO in the middle of the night lest you want a, uhm, interesting tale to tell



I've been keeping my opinions to myself on this thread, but anybody (not just LEOs, but *anybody*) who's had to deal with "unknowns" in a darkly tinted car at night, should understand why this can be a life or death issue.

I think your argument sucks and I'll tell you why. If it's in fact true that a tinted car can cause dangers then why allow the back window and side rear windows? A person riding in the back can very easily shoot a cop through the window while the driver has his hands on the wheel. Second, a cop 99% of the time approaches a car from the back not from the front. Why can't the front windshield have tint then? It would make much more sense to outlaw tints on the backwindow than the front. Wouldn't you agree? If it's about life and death to the police then make it no tint at all.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[LouisanaJeeper]

I think your argument sucks and I'll tell you why. If it's in fact true that a tinted car can cause dangers then why allow the back window and side rear windows? A person riding in the back can very easily shoot a cop through the window while the driver has his hands on the wheel. Second, a cop 99% of the time approaches a car from the back not from the front. Why can't the front windshield have tint then? It would make much more sense to outlaw tints on the backwindow than the front. Wouldn't you agree? If it's about life and death to the police then make it no tint at all.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------