Car audio ban affects home audio too

keith allen

HUUUH,I cant hear ya,got the carver @ 1:00

dkg999

Cathy - unfortunately you can't legislate curtesy, manners, respect, or intelligence. That's why these types of laws and ordinances are more about revenue collection than law enforcement. Unfortunately those who weren't the problem get penalized more than those that are, and will continue to be, the problem.

MacLeod

RuSsMaN wrote:

blah blah blah

I don't live in St Louis. I don't care.

You think that if this passes it wont be tried elsewhere?

And nobody would mind if this law was simply "you play your music loud you get slapped with a $1000 fine". But this is "you even OWN the equipment that is capable of playing loud music and we'll not only fine you but CONFISCATE your equipment". I dont understand why some of you dont have a problem with this!

Tour2ma

I think it's a noise ordinance. We already have noise ordinances, and I am fine with them.

markmarc

One good lawyer, will get that law in front of the Missouri state supreme court. It will be shot down as be illegal seizure of private property.

The law should have been written to describe decibel levels as above legal limit.

Be as that may, I hate thumping bass. It is a scientifically proven irritant to the senses, that shortens people's tempers. My wife and I don't care for air conditioning so we like having our windows open during the summer. But rarely get to enjoy it as so many rude people boom boom their mediocre car stereos in order to make up for their undersized manhood. Secondly, it goes against the common sense of our Constitutional framers who understood that one person's rights ends where anothers begins.

Ok, I'm done ranting.

Tour2ma

markmarc wrote:

My wife and I don't care for air conditioning so we like having our windows open during the summer.

If you lived in Texas, A/C would be your best friend...

Still, closed windows do not dampen the "thud-thud" of the posers driving by...

Skynut

MacLeod wrote:

You think that if this passes it wont be tried elsewhere?

And nobody would mind if this law was simply "you play your music loud you get slapped with a $1000 fine". But this is "you even OWN the equipment that is capable of playing loud music and we'll not only fine you but CONFISCATE your equipment". I dont understand why some of you dont have a problem with this!

Exactly.
One city bans gun ownership (DC) and others follow. (SF)
If people can't see that then there will be more trouble than we can imagine.
Legislaters pass laws just to show that they did something, anything. If we don't **** they will just keep doing it.
They like to have a resume that shows they know how to screw the little guys.

Tour2ma

Quit bitching... start voting...

bikezappa

Why do people want to make more laws to censor and restrict people?

Many people in power and in religion think that we, the commen folk, can't govern or control ourself and need their guidence regardless if we want it or not. There are missionaries everywhere.

Play your tunes with all the knobs turned right or clockwise.

ohskigod

Tour2ma wrote:

Quit bitching... start voting...

exactly!

if St Louis doesnt like it, Vote the people out. if the makers of the law know they are going to get punted for making this Law, then trust me, they will stop making the law. its the strength and beauty of democracy.

DC? and San Fran? with the gun thing. we all know theyre very left leaning cities. and thats why it flies. All you can do is vote appropriatly and hope for the best.

its not we dont care, we just dont feel like going on a crusade for St Louis if their people arent dumb enough to raise hell opn there own. those Politicians dont care about the opinions of our of city residents simply because we can not vote for them.

Skynut

Many of us do vote and many times our votes are deemed unconstitutional or illegal by some POS judge somewhere.
If the lobyist want a law passed it will pass. Many times the people are just being polled at the voting booth to see how well the law will be received, if there is enough money behind the measure the outcome of the vote can be re-read by one of these judges.
I believe for change to occur the judges in our system need to be voted in and out of power by the people. This whole appointing judges for life is B.S. It is another way the politicians keep the masses in control.

cfrizz

Now hold on Sky, if you don't like it if a law is struck down, don't blame the judges, blame the law makers who conjured up a stupid law that was unconstitutional. That is the framework that all judges use.

Now granted, whichever way the judge leans be it liberal or conservative, it can sometimes have a possible effect on his/her decision.

But if something is worth fighting for, it will go up the judicial ladder until resolved.

If the lawmakers pass a dumb law, it is up to the courts to put it down.

bikezappa

Voting is the best. I agree.
Also, you can email your senator and congressperson any time with an issue that concerns you.
Just google them and you will get their web page with a contact option.
It takes the same time as posting on the POLK web site.
Go figure, people will complaint here but not to their senator or congressperson.
WTF.
Empty barrels make the most noise.

Skynut

It just appears to me that if a vote determines that 65% of the people want to pass something then it is up to the judge to make it pass and not just say it is unconstitutional and fails.
I don't know if that makes sense.
I have seen the people vote overwhelmingly in favor of something and the judge just throws it out. If something is written wrong then fix it, don't just dismiss the will of the people.
Plus when a judge is appointed for life there is no recourse against them being the allmighty decision maker. There is no repurcussions for their actions. They are not fired or reprimended and you know they do not get docked any of their higher than average pay.
Judges are put into place to keep parties powerfull and if you don't believe me just look how hard it is to get one approved through the 2 parties we have.
If we voted them in we could vote them out when they go against our majority.
I understand what you are saying that if it is unconstitutional then it can not pass but, when 3 judges think it is ok and 1 sends a bill or measure packing then there is something wrong and usually someone is making money on the deal.
I would venture a guess that all judges are millionares and their wealth is comming in faster than thier w-2 can account for it.

AsSiMiLaTeD

Cathy, I think you're missing the point here...

A law that states you can't play your music loud (i.e. someone can't heard it from 20 feet or more from your house) is fine I guess. I'm not sure, but I think we have those kinds of laws here in Tx as well.

However, a law that says you can only x amount of watts or x number of speakers is ridiculous. How about they go ahead and apply that logic to home audio. You can only have 300 watts of total power? Which one of your amps are you gonna give up, your 3802, your Parasound, or the Outlaw?

Mandating things like sound levels and such is fine with me because it forces people to have respect for other people. Mandating what I can own is ludicrous.

I also don't like the language in the bill either. Instead of saying something vague 'you have to listen at normal volumes', why don't they say something more concrete like 'from a distance of x feet from any part of your house, the DB reading from an SPL meter cannot exceed x', or 'from a distance of x feet from any part of your house, anything taking place within the house cannot be audible'.

And since we're gonna ban audio stuff, here's a few other things we should ban:

loud car engines
loud motorcycles
outdoor activity in your yard that can be heard from within your neighbors home (pool, sports, etc)
construction
power equipment that can be heard from within your neighbor's home (saws, sanders, power washers, garage door openers,etc)
animals barking or whatever that can be heard from within your neighbor's home
etc etc

People need to respect each other and I agree with laws that enforce that idea, but we need to be careful when making blanket statements and laws like the one presented here...

audiobliss

PM - Very good post. Sums up the whole argument quite nicely.

+1!!

MacLeod

cfrizz wrote:

Now hold on Sky, if you don't like it if a law is struck down, don't blame the judges, blame the law makers who conjured up a stupid law that was unconstitutional. That is the framework that all judges use.

Now granted, whichever way the judge leans be it liberal or conservative, it can sometimes have a possible effect on his/her decision.

But if something is worth fighting for, it will go up the judicial ladder until resolved.

If the lawmakers pass a dumb law, it is up to the courts to put it down.

Not true. There are way too many activist judges on the bench these days that are legislating their beliefs rather than interpreting the Constitution.

Examples would be the Texas sodomy law the Supreme Court ruled on. Regardles your opinion of the law the Supremes actually admitted to using "international law" to determine their position!!!! This is insane! They should consult the Constitution and ONLY the Constition.

Another example is when the Supremes ruled a city could take your house and land and give it to a Walmart if they wanted to. Blatant violation of the Constitution.

Another example is prop something-or-other in California that would deny welfare to illegal immigrants. It passed with something like 85% of the vote yet the California activist court deemed it unconstitutional!

Also, it doesnt matter how dumb a law is, if its Constitutional then there is nothing they can do.

An extreme example would be say the Constitution plainly stated "WOMEN ARE NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE" and a state passes a law giving women the ability to vote in their state. Well that law would be unconstitutional and if brought before a judge he would have no choice, regardless his opinion on the matter, to strike down the law.

That is the brilliance of this system. The judge isnt giving his opinion on whether its a good law or not his SOLE duty is to determine if that law conflicts with the Constitution.

madmax

OK, so lets limit you to two 10" subs and 300 watts. No problem. Manufacturers will step up to the plate, give you three times the woofer excursion and be VERY conservitive with power ratings.
madmax

heiney9

MacLeod wrote:

Not true. There are way too many activist judges on the bench these days that are legislating their beliefs rather than interpreting the Constitution.

Examples would be the Texas sodomy law the Supreme Court ruled on. Regardles your opinion of the law the Supremes actually admitted to using "international law" to determine their position!!!! This is insane! They should consult the Constitution and ONLY the Constition.

Another example is when the Supremes ruled a city could take your house and land and give it to a Walmart if they wanted to. Blatant violation of the Constitution.

Another example is prop something-or-other in California that would deny welfare to illegal immigrants. It passed with something like 85% of the vote yet the California activist court deemed it unconstitutional!

Also, it doesnt matter how dumb a law is, if its Constitutional then there is nothing they can do.

An extreme example would be say the Constitution plainly stated "WOMEN ARE NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE" and a state passes a law giving women the ability to vote in their state. Well that law would be unconstitutional and if brought before a judge he would have no choice, regardless his opinion on the matter, to strike down the law.

That is the brilliance of this system. The judge isnt giving his opinion on whether its a good law or not his SOLE duty is to determine if that law conflicts with the Constitution.

Yes, that's all well and good. However where judges have very wide discretion is in the INTERPRETATION of the law and its intent. Once a precedent has been set then it becomes easier and easier the next time around. I really wanted to stay on the fringe here but I had to give my .02c.

H9

cfrizz

The Constitution in itself is a fairly broad document. The country as we know it is constantly changing, therefore, laws that were put on the books eons ago by individual states may or may not be applicable or even sensible now. Nor does it mean that these laws should have even been put on the books in the first place.

But they were, and are now being challenged and being found unconstitutional or upheld.

But labeling a judge as an activist only means that YOU want them to judge the law by how YOU think it should be. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with how the judge should interpret the law within the framework of the Constitution.

MacLeod

Nope. The Constitution is not a flexible document or a living document or whatever. There are ways to change it and it requires a lot of work and time but its the ONLY way to change it, not by a judges whim. Take slavery, it wasnt ended by the Supreme Court or Abraham Lincoln. It was ended when the House and Senate passed the ammendmant and was then ratified by 75% of the population. Up til that point, slavery was legal.

And when a judge admits to using international law to make their decisions or seeing things that are simply not in the Constitution then he is an activist judge plain and simple, regardless the ruling or his political persuasion or whether I agree with him or not.

audiobliss

MacLeod wrote:

Nope. The Constitution is not a flexible document or a living document or whatever. There are ways to change it and it requires a lot of work and time but its the ONLY way to change it, not by a judges whim. Take slavery, it wasnt ended by the Supreme Court or Abraham Lincoln. It was ended when the House and Senate passed the ammendmant and was then ratified by 75% of the population. Up til that point, slavery was legal.

And when a judge admits to using international law to make their decisions or seeing things that are simply not in the Constitution then he is an activist judge plain and simple, regardless the ruling or his political persuasion or whether I agree with him or not.

Amen!

Too few people today see it that way.

jrlouie

Interesting, and I appreciate everyone's political opinions. But outside of the political aspect, here's a note.
I just came back from a restaurant, where the bartender over-heard me explaining this to my girlfriend. He thought it was quite interesting and believed it'll never become law. He said one of the new Lexus vehicles has a Mark Levinson system in it factory, that has 17 speakers in it.
Kind of crazy if you can't own that car and live in St. Louis.

cfrizz

I never said that the Constitution was flexible, I said it was written broadly. While the Constitution might not be a living document, the laws are. They have written, changed, struck down, reaffirmed, ect. ect. All within the broad guidelines of the Constitution.

BTW, if that proposal does become law, it will be challenged & struck down because it is asinine & intrudes on peoples privacy.

goingganzo

actuley you can get a ticket with most stock stereos in cars. whell if this is then people will just be getting the super high excurson subs in a 12 in format.

Tour2ma

To say that the Constitution is not open to interpretation is ludicrious, if for no other reason than that is your interpretation.

Hang in there, Cathy... Let me know when you need to "tag out".

Anyone have a link to the law being discussed?

jrlouie

Tour2ma wrote:

Anyone have a link to the law being discussed?

http://stlcin.missouri.org/Document/aldermen/PDF/BB081.pdf

cfrizz

This was the other point I wanted to address.

You are dead wrong on this one Sky. I know a judge personally, & he is by no means rich! He needs to move back into the city in which he is a judge, but cannot afford to buy a decent house there!

Judges are leaving the bench right and left because their salaries are not keeping up with expenses. They are overworked & underpaid since it is our taxes that pays their salaries.

Many of them are bailing out cause they need to live too!

Skynut wrote:

I would venture a guess that all judges are millionares and their wealth is comming in faster than thier w-2 can account for it.

heiney9

Cathy is right. Sky you are thinking of perhaps supreme court judges or high level municipal judges or perhaps apellate judge. The avg. judge that sits at your city court house certainly isn't close to a millionaire. Some make a good salary but no more than the rest of us at the top of our professions.

H9

shack

In the vast majority of cases, if a judge is an attorney before he takes the bench, he is taking a significant cut in pay. A federal court judge with a $150.000 - $200,000 ± salary would probably make a minimum of $500,000++ in private practice.