Maryland Judge Decrees Pontiac G8 GT Tail Lights Illegal

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

Supposedly this is a picture of the tail lights in question:

As far as I know he had already switched back to the stock tail lights at the time of the incident.

[The_Blur]

This story made its way to Jalopnik.

If the state of Maryland wants to supercede federal law, then the state should offer a free aftermarket tail lamp that follows its law. Otherwise, I hope this goes to a federal court and gets overturned.

[Dave McFly]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

As far as I know he had already switched back to the stock tail lights at the time of the incident.

you sir are right, i have been reading the 6 page (as of last night) thread about it, those pics were taken a few months ago, he did not have them tinted at the time he was pulled over .

[Sax1031]

I am seriously starting to doubt the guy's story.

Apparently he supposedly has 3-4 different set of tail lights. He happened to have the stock ones on at the time of the stop and court date.

He is deleting the hell out of his posts over there.

[CaniacFan]

Originally Posted by BackinBlackSS/RS

WOW! That judge is full of FAIL!!!!!

+1, EPIC FAIL.. Let the law suits begin..

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

I am seriously starting to doubt the guy's story.

Apparently he supposedly has 3-4 different set of tail lights. He happened to have the stock ones on at the time of the stop and court date.

He is deleting the hell out of his posts over there.

That doesn't matter. The court ruled that the original equipment is illegal despite being certified as legal by the federal government. Regardless of his other tail lamps, the case only involved the original equipment. As far as the court is concerned, those did not come up as evidence so they don't matter.

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

That doesn't matter. The court ruled that the original equipment is illegal despite being certified as legal by the federal government. Regardless of his other tail lamps, the case only involved the original equipment. As far as the court is concerned, those did not come up as evidence so they don't matter.

So you were there when he was pulled over?

[Jacqs]

Originally Posted by shank0668

A new California!

Just what I was thinking.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

So you were there when he was pulled over?

Did you read the judgement?

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

So you were there when he was pulled over?

It doesn't matter who was there. It matters that the court ruled on the OEM tail lamps and no other tail lamps during the case. Inasmuch, the court made no decision on aftermarket tail lamps. The court ruled that OEM tail lamps for the G8 GT are not legal in the state of Maryland. I don't have to be there to read about the court decision.

Did your question imply that you have something constructive to add, or where you just needlessly stirring the pot?

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

Did you read the judgement?

No I didn't do you got a link to it?

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

So you were there when he was pulled over?

He had to have had the stock tail lights on. Why the hell would he bring sales brochures and photos of other stock G8 GTs to court when he had aftermarket tail lights installed?

Plus, he also posted that he drove his G8 to a local police department and a highway patrol station who both found no problems with the the tail lights. If he had the smoked ones on, then they would definitely have put out a red flag.

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

He had to have had the stock tail lights on. Why the hell would he bring sales brochures and photos of other stock G8 GTs to court when he had aftermarket tail lights installed?

Plus, he also posted that he drove his G8 to a local police department and a highway patrol station who both found no problems with the the tail lights. If he had the smoked ones on, then they would definitely have put out a red flag.

I am asking for a link to the ruling from the judge. Not from this guy's mouth.

I started to lose faith in his story the minute he started deleting everything he posted about the whole deal.

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

I am asking for a link to the ruling from the judge. Not from this guy's mouth.

I started to lose faith in his story the minute he started deleting everything he posted about the whole deal.

I was in the thread when he and the site started deleting posts. He was worried the judge/state would come after him for it. The members reassured him that they couldn't touch him, but it seems like he's a little paranoid now.