Well bluesuedetruck chalk up a BIG FAT WRONG for yourself , because YES I have a close family memember and SEVERAL friends that are in one form of law enforcement or other , and am in fact pursuing the same career my self and have been on "ride alongs " and was allowed to approach the vehicle on the pass side from the rear and for lack of a better term " watch my buddies back while he spoke to the driver . Second your assertion about "me , my girl and my BUDS ( I have NO idea why you quoted the word Buds , perhaps a back handed/sarcastic assumption about pot ?) is worded like your talking to some punk teenager or early 20 something kid , the fact is Im a 33 year old Father, and you will only ever catch me "crying " about the actions of a LEO is when they are ridiculous aggressive for the situation ( as a way to show how "powerful they are " ), and please dont insult my intelligence by saying this doesnt happen as I have seen it with my own eyes , or are coming dangerously close to violating civil rights , again for no other reason then the power trip .
Further more I WORK with varying levels of LEO's as a private tactical shooting instructor , and "off the record " they paint a VERY different picture then what the general public sees. Regardless , it still in no way justifies the existance of completly absurd rules that contradict themselves ( Tint Rule) I guess next your gonna claim that ALL cops are for further erosion of our 2nd Ammendment rights to firearms in the name of their safety ? When the TRUTH is OFF the record , they dont agree with the laws being so overly restrictive , but they have to enforce what the law says regardless of personal opinion or feeling .
In fact In Florida , MANY rank and file officers LIKE that it is a CCW state and dont feel any more threatened knowing that at virtually ANY traffic stop the motorist could be armed . I know the last few things were generally " off topic " but were included as a way to illustrate my point .


For that matter blue suede , you COMPLETLY missed the point of my post !! I was illustrating the absurdity of NJ MV rules , by describing that it is COMPLETLY LEGAL to PAINT your rear windows an inpenetrable jet black ( There by TOTALLY obscuring ANY movement being seen inside the vehicle when approaching from the rear ) , yet having overly severe restrictions on Front window tint . From nothing more then a purely "tactical standpoint " this is after all the field that I TEACH , this blatant contradicition in the MV Code is nuts !! READ the MV Code , it clearly states that the ostensable reason for limiting front window tint is for "officer safety " during a traffic stop . Yet if they were TRULEY concerned about officer safety , then REAR window tint would be equally restrictive or prohibited in full . The officer approaching a vehicle during a stop is most vulnearable to "ambush " and at a BIG disadvantage for finding cover or returning fire when hes APPROACHING the vehicle . Once hes along side the drivers door , he has a MUCH better field of view of what the occupants movements may be and is MUCH closer ( therefore MORE Likely) to hit his target . So for the MV Code to make sense and truly be about "officer safety see my above argument AGAINST Black out rear window tinting . Now as to obscured rear tags , you wont get an argument from me about that one bit , but thats also irrelevant to the fact that PLENTY of other states have DECADES of practical experience with only requiring a REAR tag and have not experienced any appreciable derogatory result because of such a policy . Which after all is what the post was originally about !!! ( Front tags ) . In the future , please refrain from making assumptions about me , my back round or personal experiences or which side of the "blue wall " Im on , because you know NOTHING about me !