Wow.. This thread is full of great material!
First a guy who is angry cops lit him up for tint a second time. Second time is on you brother! Then guy tells everyone to read more closely, as if that's going to change folks' entrenched opinions. The only thing to read closely here is the ca vehicle code. Unfortunately, the vehicle code is pretty clear. As @
PMok says, if you wanna play, be prepared to pay. No judgment here on the merits of the law, but we can all agree we know front tint is a risk and raises extra scrutiny from chp. If the ticket freight and/or trouble of tint removal (and I know it sucks from exp) is too much, then don't run front tints. Or run them, and pay the fine we all know will result. The nail that sticks out gets hammered. Accept that.
Then a self-proclaimed attorney from New Jersey pops into a NorCal thread (why?) to opine on chp profiling tendencies, and everyone argues his logic is terrible. Actually it's his persuasive writing that is terrible; I suspect he didn't mean to contradict himself and that he just needs to spend some time with style guides. Or he's a law student. In any event, he does raise one good point, sort of - chp will absolutely profile you if you are violating the vehicle code. They may not automatically assume you are a minority (some might), but they will probably jump to the conclusion that you don't respect the vehicle code or don't know it. If you're driving a tinted twin, chp will rule out the latter and assume the former. But seriously, let's hope for the sake of aggrieved victims of civil rights violations in NJ that our guy doesn't write his legal briefs over tapatalk.
Just like front tinters, if you call yourself an attorney to validate your arguments in a car forum thread, you are a nail asking to be hammered.