I don't want to drag this on any more than anyone else does, but IMO, the one technicality that BAC came up with wasn't a strong blanket argument. Through our conversation, I learned that there's nothing specific to "tinting" tail lights.
Here's my line of thinking. Would a cop care if I tinted my tails 1%? I'm sure we can agree that's a no. How about 10%? The point is that there's no written standard for taillamps like there is on windows. Obviously the guy who sprays something on -such that his light output diminishes to a point of being unsafe- deserves a ticket. I genuinely believe I'm not in that category. Nor would a Laminex film be.
Will I go voluntarily subject myself to a ticket? Nah. Would anyone here voluntarily submit to a driving safety test that could potentially end in a ticket if you get something wrong? No. Does that mean you're positively going to fail such a test? Nope.
So yes, my tails are "illegal". But so are plenty of other things that we all do. My point is that reasonable tint translucency shouldn't be frowned upon...in the same way that following reasonably-less than a "safe" distance from the car in front of you is looked past. If someone feels the need to interject OT banter about another member's tails, then let that person also be responsible for policing every other "illegal" activity that goes on here.