Car audio ban affects home audio too

McLoki

Just for clarification -

what 300 watts is it talking about? 300 watts / channel @ 8 ohms with all channels being driven from 20-20k hz or a pair of computer speakers that has a big 500 watt sticker on the front of it. (I don't know car audio well enough to put the correct analogy here...)

What are they using to measure watts? Hell we can't settle on a way to define watts and we are interested in it. - is there a similar wattage / speaker limit for home audio?

Just curious. I have just stumbled across this thread and don't want to rehash alot of thoughts until I have a chance to read all the posts.....

Michael

MacLeod

Tour2ma wrote:

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?

Good grief. Didja even bother reading my posts? I NEVER SAID THE CONSTITUTION WASNT OPEN TO INTERPRETATION!

In fact that is the sole job of a judge, to interpret the Constitution and determine if law X adheres to it.

My problem is with judges that do not interpret the Constitution but rather use his/her own opinion on the subject. Like the Texas sodomy law the Supreme's struck down. They admitted they consulted INTERNATIONAL LAWS (!) in determining this case! Regardless if the law was stupid or not, if they cant find a conflict with the stupid law and the Constitution then they must uphold the law and not venture out to some other country's law to find a conflict.

It is not the job of the judicial branch to strike down laws because theyre "stupid", thats for the legislative branch and the voters to take care of. The sole and only purpose of the judicial branch is to determine if the law is Constitutional or not. I mean, 90% of the alcohol laws we have here in Tennessee are the stupidest things Ive ever heard of, yet theyre fully Constitutional and the judicial branch has nothing to say about em.

MacLeod

And yes, judges do not make as much as people think. Federal judges make in the 100,000's with state and local judges in the 70-90,000. I actually find this refreshing because this way youre more likely to get someone that is motivated by a desire to serve rather than a desire to get rich.

Tour2ma

MacLeod wrote:

Good grief. Didja even bother reading my posts? I NEVER SAID THE CONSTITUTION WASNT OPEN TO INTERPRETATION!

Yup I read your posts and I will maintain that, "Not open to interpretation," is a logical extension of the sum total of your posts.

MacLeod wrote:

In fact that is the sole job of a judge, to interpret the Constitution and determine if law X adheres to it.

Job of some, actually relatively few judges, not all...

MacLeod wrote:

My problem is with judges that do not interpret the Constitution but rather use his/her own opinion on the subject.

Opinion vs. interpretation... kind of a tough line to draw don't you think?

MacLeod wrote:

Like the Texas sodomy law the Supreme's struck down. They admitted they consulted INTERNATIONAL LAWS (!) in determining this case! Regardless if the law was stupid or not, if they cant find a conflict with the stupid law and the Constitution then they must uphold the law and not venture out to some other country's law to find a conflict.

C'mon... you know the Constitution doesn't deal in minutiae. Our judicial history is loaded with instances of lawmakers and the judiciary researching foreign laws in the absence of domestic precedent. Hell, even the Constitution itself took from systems of government that pre-dated it by 100's of years.

MacLeod wrote:

It is not the job of the judicial branch to strike down laws because theyre "stupid", thats for the legislative branch and the voters to take care of. The sole and only purpose of the judicial branch is to determine if the law is Constitutional or not. I mean, 90% of the alcohol laws we have here in Tennessee are the stupidest things Ive ever heard of, yet theyre fully Constitutional and the judicial branch has nothing to say about em.

So the judiciary should strike down stupid laws??? Seeing as how they came from the legislature who were elected by the people, I don't know what alternative you are suggesting...

And earlier (just to show I did read your posts) you mentioned a need to elect judges so that they were accountable. Well, we do that in Texas and what a God awful mess that creates. Trust me... you do not want to politicize the judiciary more than it already is.

Anyway, back on topic...

Have you read the St. Louis statute? The vehicle seizure is an evidentuary seizure... as in so the offender cannot remove any components in violation of the ordinance. Plenty of precedent for that. The vehicle is not taken permanently.

Of course, that may not stir up folks enough, so just leave out the "temporary" part...

MacLeod

-So where exactly did I said the Constitution should not be interpreted?

MacLeod wrote:

There are way too many activist judges on the bench these days that are legislating their beliefs rather than interpreting the Constitution.

Or maybe here?

MacLeod wrote:

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.

-No, its the job of ALL the judges to abide by the Constitution. Now not all do and that is the problem.

-Its easy to tell opinion from interpretation. If the judge is making **** up that is not in the Constitution, well then he's giving an opinion.

-When deciding a case, the only thing a judge need to consult is the United States Constitution. Why in the hell would it be ok for a judge to consult the constitution of India or Pakistan to decide a case here based on American laws?

-And what the hell are you talking about on this one. I plainly stated it is NOT the job of the judiciary to strike down stupid laws. Its not in their purview. The legislative branch is the one that deals with laws. If you think a law is stupid (like most of the beer laws in TN) then its not up to a judge to strike it down, its up to the people to voice their opinion and elect politicians that will strike it down. The judiciary can only strike it down if it violates the Constitution.

-No you didnt read my posts, because that wasnt me that suggested electing judges. That wouldve been Skynut.

-OK, so you think its perfectly fine for the cops to "temporarily" seize my truck just because I happen to have an amp bigger than 300 watts? So by extent, it would be ok for the cops to come into your house and "temporarily" seize your amps because theyve decided to outlaw ownership of them. I mean youll get them back after your trial, so its ok right?

Gimme a break.

BobMcG

Remember, it was the fine upstanding folks of St. Louis that voted the knuckleheads into office that worked on this bill. :rolleyes:

Look into the people behind the bill and take good care of them next time at the ballot box.

exalted512

Are some of you saying you actually agree with this law??? I'm kinda confused.

Not sure if this is real or not, does anyone know if "thenewspaper.com" is a legit site? If it is, they just made it illegal to own certain cars.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/09/928.asp
-Cody

MacLeod

Its already passed the legislature, its waiting on the Mayor to sing it into law. Hopefully he'll veto it.

Tour2ma

Not a chance in hell of a veto... Look at the demographics of the issue. Besides, it's a city ordinance, so why would the Governor get involved?

exalted512 wrote:

Are some of you saying you actually agree with this law??? I'm kinda confused.

Not sure if this is real or not, does anyone know if "thenewspaper.com" is a legit site? If it is, they just made it illegal to own certain cars.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/09/928.asp
-Cody

3rd option is that I don't care and only impact it might have on me is postitive, i.e., I may be annoyed less by 01:00, "Thud-Thud" drive-bys.

As for newspaper.com, there are at least three alarmist inaccurracies in it.

newspaper.com wrote:

Automakers such as Audi, BMW and Porsche offer as many as fourteen speakers as part of standard or optional audio packages. Even the $23,000 Toyota RAV4 is available with a 440-watt sound system that violates a provision against having "more than 300 watts of output."

The 14 speakers is a "violation", but the 300 watts may not be, and it applies to a single amp and up to two amps are allowed.

newspaper.com wrote:

Under the ordinance, a car will be taken away upon accusation and before any finding of guilt by a judge or jury. There may be no hearing on the matter for as long as a week and the automobile will be held thereafter until the police deem "the motor vehicle is no longer necessary for prosecution."

Again, it's an evidentuary seizure... Section 4 sets a four-week maximum for a court date, so the seizure is not open ended.

newspaper.com wrote:

Expensive towing fees, storage fees and fines must be paid before the car is released.

No different than any other crime in which a vehicle is involved.

If you really want to pressure St.Louis on this, but do not live in the area, organize a boycott of Budweiser and all its products. They own St. Louis...

EDIT: On the plus side... car amp makers may stop bloating their output ratings...

MacLeod

Oops, that shoulve read "Mayor".

Tour2ma wrote:

On the plus side... car amp makers may stop bloating their output ratings...

Home audio is the only place youll find bloated amp ratings. Virtualy every car amp I know of far exceeds its ratings and some competition level amps come close to doubling their ratings. Home audio is the only place youll find 10,000 watt ratings on $100 receivers.

Tour2ma wrote:

Again, it's an evidentuary seizure... Section 4 sets a four-week maximum for a court date, so the seizure is not open ended.

Who cares how long the seizure is! Would you like to have your car seized for 4 weeks just becuse you own an amp!

Tour2ma wrote:

No different than any other crime in which a vehicle is involved.

Yeah, its not different than any other crime, only that its ridiculous to make owning a single amp bigger than 300 watts a crime!

Tour2ma wrote:

3rd option is that I don't care and only impact it might have on me is postitive, i.e., I may be annoyed less by 01:00, "Thud-Thud" drive-bys.

Yeah, thats what I figured. It doesnt affect you personally so who cares. So next time a law gets passed restricting something youre into, before you start bitching about it, just remember nobody else cares.

Well I can see this was a useless attempt so Im out.

exalted512

MacLeod wrote:

so Im out.

like a fat kid in dodgeball
-Cody

Tour2ma

MacLeod wrote:

Yeah, thats what I figured. It doesnt affect you personally so who cares. So next time a law gets passed restricting something youre into, before you start bitching about it, just remember nobody else cares.

Pretty much correct in that it will not affect me negatively. I own nothing that violates the ordinance and have a good understanding with my neighbors to call me first should my home audio/ HT ever annoy them (and they have not called in 14 years). But as I said earlier, it might affect me positively, so any apathy I display is actually a vote of support for your cause.

As for me not getting your, or your minions, support next time it's I who care about something, I think it's a safe bet that was not going to happen anyway.

But clearly, Mac, this issue does affect you personally. To the point where you have lost your objectivity here.

Seeing as how I have already misquoted you a couple times in this thread, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I read where you don't have a use for the irresponsible car audio posers who create the nuisance that gives this ordinance a reason to ever see the light of day. So what have you done on that count?

MacLeod wrote:

Who cares how long the seizure is! Would you like to have your car seized for 4 weeks just becuse you own an amp!

Yeah, its not different than any other crime, only that its ridiculous to make owning a single amp bigger than 300 watts a crime!

But what you are overlooking is called probable cause. You might have heard of it, it's one of those liberal legal concepts. In other words, the car in question would first have to be creating an audible nuisance. Random stops for watt-meter checks aren't in the cards here. And if somehow they were tried, there's an outfit called the ACLU that would have a big issue with that.

MacLeod wrote:

Well I can see this was a useless attempt so Im out.

Sure you are... I am honestly not trying to bait you here, but as passionate as you appeared to be about this, either you can't stay out or you don't care as much as it appears you do.

When you come back, be productive, propose an alternative. There are three ideas in this thread on how to combat this ordinance, i.e., write, vote, boycott. I, the one who either "does not care" or is "for it", put forth two of them, including the only one that is a national scale option to combat this "local issue".

C'mon, you can't be that fond of Budweiser...

LanceThruster

Hope I can get this thread active again. I'll be adding my $.02 in the weeks to come. I'm in the middle of dealing with the kid across the street who just has no conception of just how much it cuts through my walls. His engine and exhaust is just as bad (street legal off-road truck). just when I get his parents to get him to show some courtesy (barely), his buddies with similar vehicles and sound systems show up and rattle to walls. They also make a point of making as much noise as they can when they pull up or pull out. You can hear them blocks away coming and going (and they do not lower their boom system a bit).

Cops are coming by tonight and I'll learn what our local ordinances are. Didn't have much problem with the kid till he came of age and got his ride (his RC buggy was noisy but shutting the door muted it enough not to be that big a deal). Now he's just an insufferable d-bag (as are every one of his friends).

It used to be a nice quiet neighborhood. Now it's just non-stop aggravation (it's been going on since Nov 2008).

nguyendot

Put some sound deadening in - it'll save you by insulating, and cut down on the noise!

What a difference it made in my house.

dkg999

The troubling fact is that there is already a law that can be used in these scenarios ........it's called disturbing the peace and quiet or DPQ as our sheriff's dept referred to it. As with most things, we don't need new laws, we just need to enforce the ones we have.

Most of the time new laws like this are about revenue generation because with a new law you can set a new fine structure vs trying to modify the current law on the books.

Just bend over and lube up and accept it .......... it's change don'tcha know!

Edit - just realized this thread is from 2006, WTF! At least someone made the search function work!

LanceThruster

Well I'll be learning first hand what the current laws are in my corner of SoCal. I hope I'll at least get some peace and quiet in the neighborhood. My 1 hour commute to and from downtown LA has become even more unbearable as I am bombarded daily by at least 3 to 5 vehicles that rattle my glass (I drive the office vanpool). Sometimes they are 4 to 5 cars away and it's still irritating. You'll most likely notice that almost all drivers have their windows cracked becauser the SPL intensity would be too much for them if they did not. Instead, they let that extra bit of oomph bleed off into the surrounding space. A long time ago I bought one of those bass tubes from Crutchfield. I wound up sending it back because it had too much power for my little liftback. My eardrums became fatigued after only a few minutes.

How would you suggest a person could deal with anonymous vehicles like that? I was stuck in the Lakers parade traffic around my work and was drowning in low frequency. I appreciate the other posters who remarked that they saw no justification to inflict their sound level on someone else. You know to tell the truth, it wouldn't be so bad if I could actually hear the song they were playing (in the 70's, loud stereo meant you knew what they were enjoying and you might actually dig the few minutes you got of their tunes). All I hear from their amplified bass sounds like an irregular heartbeat.

I agree the law should not be overkill or unfairly punative, but I haven't seen any indication that there is any enforcement taking place whatsoever. All my friends that smoked would make adjustments if you told them it was bothering you (go outside, put it out, whatever). All you had to do was ask. I haven't had that experience with bass-holes.

As such, I can't honestly say I feel much sympathy. If I don't know you're blasting your music, I don't have a problem. If I can't get you to stop invading my space with it, I do (and still haven't figured out what to do about it).

LanceThruster

nguyendot wrote: »

Put some sound deadening in - it'll save you by insulating, and cut down on the noise!

What a difference it made in my house.

I am going to finally install double-pane glass (not cheap even DIY) but my room is a garage conversion with a suspended ceiling and it's like he's right inside the room with me. Ever see the demonstrations at the museum with the speaker and the passive sound element? The pressure wave moves with almost the same intensity and vibrates the membrane. I've played plenty of loud music in my life (house not apt), and by the time you get 10-15 ft from the structure, the volume drops considerably. Now I can track the neighbor's kids as if I had sonar. I know where they're coming from, where they're turning, the stops they make, etc. for near a half mile.

They're living proof that common sense and common courtesy aren't. I still like venting here (thanks all) because it seems all the anti-site forums have pretty much closed up shop. Maybe they surrendered.

I'll keep hanging tough and working on a fallback insanity defense (Honest judge! It wasn't until I snapped to that I realized I was stomping his head into the curb!)

NotaSuv

"How would you suggest a person could deal with anonymous vehicles like that? I was stuck in the Lakers parade traffic around my work and was drowning in low frequency. I appreciate the other posters who remarked that they saw no justification to inflict their sound level on someone else. You know to tell the truth, it wouldn't be so bad if I could actually hear the song they were playing (in the 70's, loud stereo meant you knew what they were enjoying and you might actually dig the few minutes you got of their tunes). All I hear from their amplified bass sounds like an irregular heartbeat."

LOL I installed a killar train horn a Nathan 3 trumpet AirChime K3LA ,compressor and air tank in my lil ole Jeep....the kine horn that scares the crap outta ya....when passed by these moving boom boxes I usually give a toot of the horn...reaction is usually that of fright/shock/WTF by the passing driver.....was at a stop light a few years ago and a kid and his GF pulled up next to me with his crap bumping not realizing how awful it really sounded..like the car was going to vibrate apart at any time......it was a pretty deserted area and I just laid on the horn till the tank drained....wish I had a picture of the look on their faces....white as a sheet and shocked and looking for the train

LanceThruster

NotaSuv wrote: »

LOL I installed a killar train horn a Nathan 3 trumpet AirChime K3LA ,compressor and air tank in my lil ole Jeep....the kine horn that scares the crap outta ya....when passed by these moving boom boxes I usually give a toot of the horn...reaction is usually that of fright/shock/WTF by the passing driver.....was at a stop light a few years ago and a kid and his GF pulled up next to me with his crap bumping not realizing how awful it really sounded..like the car was going to vibrate apart at any time......it was a pretty deserted area and I just laid on the horn till the tank drained....wish I had a picture of the look on their faces....white as a sheet and shocked and looking for the train

I like your solution, LOL, though seriously there's always the danger of road rage (a man's vehicle is his mobile castle and all).

I can attest that the only thing that was effective was hitting the panic alarm on the vanpool van with the remote (plus I didn't have to go across the street and **** to someone in my boxers) but they called work to complain (seems *they* don't like intrusive noises) and I haven't been able to use it since. Too bad too, because the regular pattern of the alarm was actually quite effective at muting his sub-woofer. If he still had it too loud when I clicked it off, I'd click it back on for a longer duration. The alarm didn't penetrate my walls that much so I could go as long as he wanted.

Maybe if the alarm played music they would have no basis to complain. I could say that was the way it sounded best to me.

The first time I went across the street to ask him if he realized just how much that frequency penetrated, his slack-jawed buddy said, "Sounds good, doesn't it?" I replied, "No, it just sounds like noise" (not a witty comeback, just the truth).

BlueFox

MacLeod wrote: »

As some of you may know, St Louis is proposing a bill that would basically outlaw aftermarket car audio and make it legal for cops to seize your ride if you have more than 2 amplifiers, more than a 12" sub, more than 2 10" subs or a seperate sub enclosure. This has made major waves over the car audio community and is a huge buzz on all the forums.

Wow. This is the best news I have heard in a long time. I am so sick of being assualted by car audio bassholes I sometimes feel like going postal. Hopefully, the courts will not say unreasonably loud car music is "free speech".

In regard to home stereo's, if you are in your home, and are being forced to listen to your neighbor's music, then that is wrong.

LanceThruster

BlueFox wrote: »

Wow. This is the best news I have heard in a long time. I am so sick of being assualted by car audio bassholes I sometimes feel like going postal. Hopefully, the courts will not say unreasonably loud car music is "free speech".

In regard to home stereo's, if you are in your home, and are being forced to listen to your neighbor's music, then that is wrong.

A big atheist amen from me, BlueFox!

Matt34

BlueFox wrote: »

Wow. This is the best news I have heard in a long time. I am so sick of being assualted by car audio bassholes I sometimes feel like going postal. Hopefully, the courts will not say unreasonably loud car music is "free speech".

In regard to home stereo's, if you are in your home, and are being forced to listen to your neighbor's music, then that is wrong.

They aren't going after "unreasonably loud cars", they are going after people that happen to have certain number/type of equipment. That is the beef people have with this bill.

wizzy

If people don't want to hear cars driving by being loud, then they shouldn't buy a house next to the street.

wizzy

Tell the parents to deal with the kids.

I recommend you get a bullhorn with a siren. You tell the parents to sneak open the kids door every morning about two hours before the kid gets up, and blast the crap out of the horn. Do that once every fifteen-twenty minutes.

Then when the kid gets pissed off, say "yeah, well, now you know ..."

Basically just pick anytime the kid likes to sleep and do anything you can to irritate the **** out of them.

LanceThruster

wizzy wrote: »

If people don't want to hear cars driving by being loud, then they shouldn't buy a house next to the street.

Now you're making me feel like a dumbass! I should have known to get one of those half acre properties set back behind the sculptured hedges and fruit tree orchard. That way the only thing I would have to listen to is the babble of the brook and the mule deer nibbling the vegetation. That realtor really saw me coming!

Seems a little tightly packed in SoCal but maybe they have those underground, ya know? Like a "civilian" bat cave! I want one so bad I'd buy two to have one as back-up!

LanceThruster

Matt34 wrote: »

They aren't going after "unreasonably loud cars", they are going after people that happen to have certain number/type of equipment. That is the beef people have with this bill.

As far as that enforcement goes, it's like getting busted for just having a gun rather than for what you weren't supposed to shoot at with it (whether you did or not).

However, can you even play some of these powerful systems low enough that their reach is not far beyond the passenger compartment?

I'm asking because I seriously do not know. If you can, what % of people actually show some self-restraint? I'd guess it's less than 50% but I wouldn't really know regarding that either.

MacLeod

Wow. Talk about some memories.

Matt34 hit it right on the head. This law in particular wasnt about just loud car stereos, it was about ALL car stereos.

The guys youre hearing thru your neighborhood dont have stereos, they have a couple 18" subs with a couple thousand watts and theyre not listening to music theyre listening to pretty much all low frequency sine bombs. lll be the first ones to support doing away with these guys. Trouble is, this bill was going after guys like me with a simple, sound quality system. My single 12" sub that you cant hear outside the car would be illegal.

LanceThruster

MacLeod wrote: »

Wow. Talk about some memories.

Matt34 hit it right on the head. This law in particular wasnt about just loud car stereos, it was about ALL car stereos.

The guys youre hearing thru your neighborhood dont have stereos, they have a couple 18" subs with a couple thousand watts and theyre not listening to music theyre listening to pretty much all low frequency sine bombs. lll be the first ones to support doing away with these guys. Trouble is, this bill was going after guys like me with a simple, sound quality system. My single 12" sub that you cant hear outside the car would be illegal.

Again, to use the firearms analogy, it sounds like banning certain weapons because they "look" mean, rather that what their features actually are. It sounds like legislators and law enforcement need to be educated on the diff between quality audio used in a responsible and considerate manner, and a bass pile-driver.

BTW, in earlier posts it mentioned that this was already the law (or being contemplated) in CA. Any further info on this? THX.

zarrdoss

This is a shortcut to Police work. Just because you have it in your car does not mean you are driving around and disturbing the peace. Whatever happened to If they catch you blasting they give you a ticket? Whats next, arresting a man for rape just because he has a ****? This needs to be fought on all levels, Just one more way of reducing your liberty's and reminding you they can f**k with you anytime they want, as long as you put up with it.

BlueFox

LanceThruster wrote: »

BTW, in earlier posts it mentioned that this was already the law (or being contemplated) in CA. Any further info on this? THX.

The only law I know of in CA is if your car stereo can be heard 50' away it is too loud. This used to be on the CHP web page, but I couldn't find it while looking earlier. Like many laws, it is on the books but rarely, if ever, enforced.

As a side note, I agree that simply having bodacious stereo gear should not be illegal. However, there should be no tolerance for abusing it. How that abuse is defined (50', 110db, etc.) is another story. I don't mind someone passing me on the road, or driving down the street, with a loud stereo. However, sitting at a stop light, or in the driveway, and blasting away should be a one-strike and you are out.