New Tint Law?

[JR1572]

Me too

I qualify for an exemption.

That way you can't tell that I'm laughing at you!





.

Same for me, but I'm both laughing and digging in my nose at the same time! I have a magic nose gobblin collection under the driver's seat.

JR1572

 

[missingAZ]

JR1572,

Respectfully, I think you and other LE are missing or perhaps ignoring the civilian point of view on this issue. The LSP waiver issue will be legitimately used by very few yet abused by very many, as is typical with almost all waiver processes.

Let me give my personal argument for my window tint. I recently moved here from Arizona a state where window tint is practically a requirement. If you ever find yourself in Arizona try running around all day with the sun beating down on your left arm, repeated sun burn sucks. In addition to that the sun does wear on the interior surfaces of the vehicle and many newer vehicles have dashboards that appear to belong in much older cars. Most people in Arizona religiously use those silver sunshields to block/reflect the sun when the car is parked. Me personally I own guns and I like to go shoot them I use my tinted windows, windshield sunshield, fake Viper stickers, and meaningless flashing blue LED on the dash to pretty much block the view of anyone "shopping" for valuables or easy break-ins if I decide to stop for lunch. When the guns aren't in the car I do have other valuables that I protect in the same way.

With that said, I don't have any conditions that would grant a medical waiver and is LSP just going to hand out security waivers for all who ask? I doubt it. So no waiver for me now I have to allow my personal private property to be destroyed and possibly stolen because some scumbag assualted a Cop. That doesn't make any sense to me. I am all for Officers safety but there are other ways to skin a cat if LE is willing to look for them and consider them before pushing i.e. forcing the enactment of laws that do nothing but invade private property which is something the Gov. does with reckless abandon but thats an another thread.

Much like most gun laws do nothing to stop or prevent crime tint laws do nothing to address and prevent violence against police officers and thats the end of the story.

Its all food for thought but Who's willing to eat?

Good luck out there, most of us are on your side.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

6 of one, half a dozen of another. Either way he leaves without his meds.

No hate, just sayin'.

uGGHHH, NOT SURE YOU GUYS ARE UNDERSTANDING.

nO MEDS.

HE HAD A PRESCRIPTION SHEET WITH WINDOW TINT WRITTEN ON IT LIKE IT WAS A REAL MEDICINE. kINDA A
NOTE FROM MY DOCTOR THING" LOL

 

[Nolacopusmc]

JR1572,

Respectfully, I think you and other LE are missing or perhaps ignoring the civilian point of view on this issue. The LSP waiver issue will be legitimately used by very few yet abused by very many, as is typical with almost all waiver processes.

Let me give my personal argument for my window tint. I recently moved here from Arizona a state where window tint is practically a requirement. If you ever find yourself in Arizona try running around all day with the sun beating down on your left arm, repeated sun burn sucks. In addition to that the sun does wear on the interior surfaces of the vehicle and many newer vehicles have dashboards that appear to belong in much older cars. Most people in Arizona religiously use those silver sunshields to block/reflect the sun when the car is parked. Me personally I own guns and I like to go shoot them I use my tinted windows, windshield sunshield, fake Viper stickers, and meaningless flashing blue LED on the dash to pretty much block the view of anyone "shopping" for valuables or easy break-ins if I decide to stop for lunch. When the guns aren't in the car I do have other valuables that I protect in the same way.

With that said, I don't have any conditions that would grant a medical waiver and is LSP just going to hand out security waivers for all who ask? I doubt it. So no waiver for me now I have to allow my personal private property to be destroyed and possibly stolen because some scumbag assualted a Cop. That doesn't make any sense to me. I am all for Officers safety but there are other ways to skin a cat if LE is willing to look for them and consider them before pushing i.e. forcing the enactment of laws that do nothing but invade private property which is something the Gov. does with reckless abandon but thats an another thread.

Much like most gun laws do nothing to stop or prevent crime tint laws do nothing to address and prevent violence against police officers and thats the end of the story.

Its all food for thought but Who's willing to eat?

Good luck out there, most of us are on your side.

Very simple. Limo tint your vehicle and then keep it off the road. Once again, driving is a previlage. the state can make any law or rule they want with exemptions for whomever they like.

If you don't like it, walk.

You have no right, and no legal ground to stand on. Just like they can make talking on the cell phone while driving, smoking while driving, obscene stickers or gestures on vehciles. they can do whatever they want, because you utilize the roads at the state's leisure.

I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD BE, BUT IT IS HOW IT IS. i totally understand and agree with the argument that most everyone has a legitimate need for tint, but that just is not the way our law is written.

Work to change it or comply.

 

[missingAZ]

Nolacopusmc,

It does me no good to tint and stay off the roads. Did you read my reasoning, is it legitimate reasoning or not. I would say so. So LSP should grant security wavers to anyone who owns anything.

I am not blasting you guys on doing your job i.e. enforcing the laws on the books. I am blasting the legislators who have drafted phony baseless laws for you to enforce. You're 100% correct they can make exemptions for who ever they want but that doesn't mean its right.

This is my USA and now my Louisiana, I ain't going anywhere.

 

[spanky]

uGGHHH, NOT SURE YOU GUYS ARE UNDERSTANDING.

nO MEDS.

HE HAD A PRESCRIPTION SHEET WITH WINDOW TINT WRITTEN ON IT LIKE IT WAS A REAL MEDICINE. kINDA A
NOTE FROM MY DOCTOR THING" LOL

You're right, I only saw the post that I quoted but a script is a script. If you're saying LEO can take a tint script bc you deem it illegitimate, logic would dictate they could do the same for a medicinal script.

But why are you yelling?

 

[JR1572]

AZ,

I have spent some time in the desert, trust me, I feel your pain with this. Afghanistan was hot. As far as dark tint, if the law is changed and darker tint is allowed, cool. Really, in my opinion (for whatever it is worth), tint could be allowed to be a little darker. I'm all about protecting one's property. But, it's not my call.

I'm all about food for thought, eating too.

Thanks for being on our side.

JR1572

 

[Nolacopusmc]

You're right, I only saw the post that I quoted but a script is a script. If you're saying LEO can take a tint script bc you deem it illegitimate, logic would dictate they could do the same for a medicinal script.

But why are you yelling?

Because my keybpoard pwns me. LOL


Your missing my point. there is no such thing as a prescrition for tint. It is just a piece of paper. It has no real meaning.

 

[D-DAY]

Because my keybpoard pwns me. LOL


Your missing my point. there is no such thing as a prescrition for tint. It is just a piece of paper. It has no real meaning.

Is that because all your roads are belong to LSP?

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Is that because all your roads are belong to LSP?

WTF?

 

[D-DAY]

WTF?

It was a joke... Without LSP's crack team of cutting edge medical personnel reviewing and signing off on these waivers, the prescriptions would remain "pieces of paper" with "no real meaning."

I wonder if there is an agency that regulates this meaningless paper? Hmmm.

 

[charlie12]

Because my keybpoard pwns me. LOL


Your missing my point. there is no such thing as a prescrition for tint. It is just a piece of paper. It has no real meaning.

I got it just some punk with a piece of paper with maybe a real Dr.name on it. Nothing from LSP

 

[Nolacopusmc]

I got it just some punk with a piece of paper with maybe a real Dr.name on it. Nothing from LSP

10-4

 

[charlie12]

When does the new law start? Will the old exemptions be no good and they'll have to go get a real one? Didn't I read that there will be a number on the windshield above the inspection sticker to show it's the new deal.

How many Doctors will sign off on something now if it's now really needed and is in their medical records?

http://www.lsp.org/pdf/WindowTintExemption-Medical.pdf

And if it's true about the number above the inspection sticker how many stations will look the other way when putting a inspection sticker on?

 

[W1nds0rF0x]

Poor choice of wording on my part.

I would collect it as evidence.

I love this topic.

JR1572

Not from me you wouldn't, and probably a lot of other non-sheeple. Just because I and/or my doctor do not yet understand the proper procedure does not make that script a forgery nor illegal. It is only within your rights ans an LEO to take it as evidence if there were something illegal about it. I can easily see my doctor doing that.

 

[Cat]

Okay... I have to poke my head in and ask how does a LEO take a prescription as evidence when it's not considered confiscation?

Not debating the rightness or wrong of this, I'm just curious how. What is the technical difference between the two?

'Cause... honest to god I'm not trying to start anything or be a smartass, but if that's the case the only difference is the term you're using. At the end of the stop, you have the prescription, the driver doesn't. Does confiscation mean you call it in and the person is not allowed to get another prescript, or does collecting it for evidence mean the original is returned as soon as you photocopy it?


Either way, I agree, just because something is written on a prescription pad does not make it a prescription. I had one from my Ortho that literally says "Run Wild", nothing else which is the name of a local athletic store.

 

[iplaybass]

LEO is not abusing the law. The law allows for leo to do it through security exemption.

whats the law ive read it and cant find the security exemption

There are 6 documents that match your query on tint.

Previous | Next | New Search

1. RS 32:361.1 - View outward or inward through windshield or windows; obscuring prohibited
[Last Modified: 01/01/2005 12:00:00 AM]
2. RS 15:587 - Duty to provide information; processing fees; Louisiana Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information
[Last Modified: 11/12/2008 02:42:57 PM]
3. RS 32:190.1 - Eye protective devices to be worn by motorcyclist; windshield on motorcycle
[Last Modified: 01/01/2005 12:00:00 AM]
4. RS 32:361.2 - Medical exemption
[Last Modified: 10/15/2008 06:30:00 PM]
5. RS 37:361 - Qualifications of college; entrance requirements and curriculum; sign
[Last Modified: 01/01/2005 12:00:00 AM]
6. RS 51:653 - Storing and displaying of fireworks
[Last Modified: 01/01/2005 12:00:00 AM]
Result Pages: 1

 

[charlie12]

Okay... I have to poke my head in and ask how does a LEO take a prescription as evidence when it's not considered confiscation?

Not debating the rightness or wrong of this, I'm just curious how. What is the technical difference between the two?

'Cause... honest to god I'm not trying to start anything or be a smartass, but if that's the case the only difference is the term you're using. At the end of the stop, you have the prescription, the driver doesn't. Does confiscation mean you call it in and the person is not allowed to get another prescript, or does collecting it for evidence mean the original is returned as soon as you photocopy it?

Cat I'm going to guess at this and I'm probably wrong but I'll try anyway.

I don't think there's such thing as a prescription for tint I think the form would have to be from the LSP and not from the Dr.

This might have been just somebody getting a Dr. excuse, maybe the guy just go a note from his Dr. and isn't legal. So he takes it for evidence.

Ok I know it's probably wrong but that's my guess.

 

[Cat]

Oh I understand that part, and agree very much with you.

I was returning to the page 26 debate... JR1572 said he'd confiscate the prescription. Nolacop corrected him saying you can't confiscate it, but you can collect it as evidence. JR agreed, said he used the wrong terminology...

I was just curious what the technical difference between the two would be. Because they sound about like the same.


That is, unless you did explain the difference to me, but my brain is completely not working and I'm missing an explanation the size of an elephant. Now I'm confused. LOL

 

[W1nds0rF0x]

Cat I'm going to guess at this and I'm probably wrong but I'll try anyway.

I don't think there's such thing as a prescription for tint I think the form would have to be from the LSP and not from the Dr.

This might have been just somebody getting a Dr. excuse, maybe the guy just go a note from his Dr. and isn't legal. So he takes it for evidence.

Ok I know it's probably wrong but that's my guess.

I see it as a way of a doctor telling a patient he needs his windows tinted do to some medical reason. whether the LSP will take it as the Dr.s signature or not is up to them. because neither of the two know better, that doesn't make it an illegal prescription, just ineffective. It's not withing the LEOs rights to confiscate it, only for him/her to tell the driver that it's not proper for an exemption. Issuing a citation at that time would be up to the particular officer.