Ok I'm confused by that...there are a lot more "ayes" than "noes" (which should be no's btw) but is this in favor of us to keep our rights to own whatever we wish or in opposition to us???
Posts: 537 | From: Canada | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I details the events that have taken place, until the bill was signed by the board president.
This is a breakdown of the events that happened on Jan 17, 2006...
1. Mr. Schmid request the bill to be sent for final examination. 2. Mr. Gregali did not approve, and wanted the bill to be re-evaluated. 3. Six people agreed to have the bill re-evaluated, 12 people did not. 4. President Shrewsbury request the bill to proceed, without re-evaluation. 5. Twenty-two people said yes, while 4 said no. 6. Mr. Reed request forgo the reading of the rules, and proceed with reading the bill for the last time. 7. Twenty-five people said yes, while one person said no. 8. Mr. Schmid request the bill be read for the final time, and then accepted by the president. 9. Twenty-two people agreed, while 4 people did not. 10. The bill was read for the last time, it was stated that there are no flaws found withn the bill. 11. The president signed (approved) the bill. 12. The approved bill was taken to the Mayor, for his approval.
The charter section described what actions are to be taken from that point on. I have not found anything that states if the Mayor approved, or disapproved the bill.
It has already been stated (new release) that the bill has passed the board's approval, and that it may be signed into law by the Mayor. I am just posting what steps were taken, for the bill to reach the point it is at now.
As you can see, not all of the board members agreed with the bill, but since the majority did, it has moved on to the final step. From the board voting results, the bill may have passed the board's approval, simply because the were little signs of interest in stopping the bill. Notice how, at first, there was more opposition to the bill than there were towards the end of the process. If there is not much initiative from the citizens, it is possible that the Mayor will sign the bill into law, since there would be no reason for him not to. Now would be a good time to let the Mayor know if you do not want him to sign the bill into law.
Also, emailing Mr. Schmid does little good, since the bill has already passed from the board, onto the Mayor.
posted
Tell everyone you know, thatif they wish to help stop this bill from passing, to please email, or call, the Mayor and say so. Even if it is to say nothing more than "Please do not approve bill 81", at least the mayor will know that there is a public interest in the bill. The more interest is shown, the more likely the Mayor will question why.
posted
Right, impound the guy's car who owns a 15" woofer - sitting in the original packing on his back seat... but let the guy who has a fully loaded shotgun sitting on his passenger seat drive on.
quote:Originally posted by Sid Grice: Tell everyone you know, thatif they wish to help stop this bill from passing, to please email, or call, the Mayor and say so. Even if it is to say nothing more than "Please do not approve bill 81", at least the mayor will know that there is a public interest in the bill. The more interest is shown, the more likely the Mayor will question why.
I may not be from the STL, but as a Car Audio Fan I do feel that others should partake in opposeing this bill. If this bill does pass over there then it's only a matter of time before it reaches My state or yours.
-------------------- Pioneer DEH 6600 Pioneer GM-4000F Pioneer TS-C1653 comp's in front Pioneer 6x9 3-ways in rear Kicker KX850.2 New Sub & enclosure comming soon! --------------------------------- If it aint bumpin', don't play it. If it aint a chevy, don't raise it. If it aint the Chronic, then don't Blaze it! Posts: 2301 | From: CA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is my firm belief that once a person in that possition takes a stance on something they will usually not change 99.9% of the time. I believe the answer is to go beyond the local city council. Address your State Senators and Representatives making them aware of this issue and how you feel. I've found out in many times past, these people seem to listen to their consituents much better than city councilmen, who seem to vote for what they believe not for what their constituents believe. If we could bring attention to it on a national level in congress, maybe something could be done to create a more ratified statewide law, which of course would hold jurisdiction over this current ordinance. I would like to see something stating tighter noise laws in residential areas, especially at evening/night. Any time ive tested my jeep which ive kept to a VERY minimal at my house, has been in the afternoon hours and only for very brief periods of time as to assure im not bothering others in the area. Now, in the evenings, EVERY single night some kid will drive by with his loud ricer exhaust and system "bumping" at least two or three times, which do you think law enforcement should take action against? And any attorney in here please correct me if im wrong but from the knowledge I do have about our legal system, in regards to the possesion of woofers over x size, etc, in most cases just having something that could be potentially dangerous does NOT create intent, and in order to be guilty of a crime, there must be intent. The only exception would be possessing a controlled substance, which as far as I understand is not being done here and can't be done on a local level. Namely because a city council cannot take measures to regulate trade, which would be required to name a certain object as a controlled substance. This is basically the same as saying even though its legal to purchase a gun, if you're caught with it, you will be arrested and convicted of murder, which we all know is crazy, but if you look at the context of this ordinance it is the EXACT same thing.
-------------------- Lemme get this straight... Your Honda Civic has 1.6 L whereas my bottle of Mountain Dew has 2?
I couldn't agree with you more about crime issues. I don't have enough room in this e-mail to discuss what we are doing in that area. In practice the legislation will only target those who are blasting the neighborhood. Rather than just seizing cars for the loud booming music like they do in Chicago, however, we wanted to give some more objective criteria for holding the car for evidence purposes when there are sound devices in the vehicle that demonstrate that it is most likely the case that some pretty intense booming music was heard by the police officer. I am not trying to stereotype or disparage car audio enthusiasts. I can assure you that the intent is not to affect folks who will be getting a permit and entering audio competitions outside of our residential areas. I can understand your concern. If this legislation is applied too broadly, I can assure you that I will be leading the charge to change it.
Thanks. Craig
Posts: 62 | From: Fort Pierce, Florida | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Under a bill now on the books, a resident must serve as a witness to such a violation between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. Under that law, after 11 p.m. and before 7 a.m., any device heard within more than 100 feet shall be evidence of a noise violation. Police officers can issue citations if they hear it without any witnesses."
It seems they are targeting the "neighborhood" bumping more so than public roads. A witness must be present to call the report in, a VISUAL witness. I agree from 11pm to 7am stereos should not be on any more so than enough to hear the words and the beat.
"Under changes in Schmid's legislation, nobody can play any sound device that's plainly audible outside, except by voluntary listeners who are present on property where the owner has given permission."
Does this mean that, if we have a car audio meet in the publix parking lot, or the local audio shops parking, that we can blast full effect as the crowd is there to enjoy that hobby? By plainly audible, do they mean the words and beat are clearly audible from outside the car? If so I know not one car that with the windows up that you can hear the beat clearly, nor the words. You may have an idea of the song, or even a good guess, but bass (when installed and deadened correctly) should not travel out of your car very far at all. If this does anything to st. louis, it will make for more professional installs, to hide the fact they have possession of illegal contriband.
Posts: 385 | From: Hattiesburg Mississippi | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by truculenity: well i got a reply to my email
Joshua:
I couldn't agree with you more about crime issues. I don't have enough room in this e-mail to discuss what we are doing in that area. In practice the legislation will only target those who are blasting the neighborhood. Rather than just seizing cars for the loud booming music like they do in Chicago, however, we wanted to give some more objective criteria for holding the car for evidence purposes when there are sound devices in the vehicle that demonstrate that it is most likely the case that some pretty intense booming music was heard by the police officer. I am not trying to stereotype or disparage car audio enthusiasts. I can assure you that the intent is not to affect folks who will be getting a permit and entering audio competitions outside of our residential areas. I can understand your concern. If this legislation is applied too broadly, I can assure you that I will be leading the charge to change it.
Thanks. Craig
sounds fair enough to me. i wouldnt mind a couple cops in my neighborhood. i go out of my neighborhood to an open parking lot to tune my system....i even move every 15 minutes or so. I would be fine with him passing a few bills to stop NEIGHBORHOOD disruption, butpublic roads are just that, public.
volume goes down under 40 mph, at redlights, and any time past 8pm on public roads.
Posts: 385 | From: Hattiesburg Mississippi | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone should also point out that the cone area of a sub does not mean it will be louder than one with less cone area. a couple tens can get just as loud as a single 12 or 15. the size rule is not logical nor the power rule imo.
Posts: 385 | From: Hattiesburg Mississippi | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
ok i see the mayor of stl has his priorities all screwed up i would be more concerned about the crime rate rather than stereo's in cars......the mayor of stl need to be filled in as to what car audio is about its about different people all shapes,sizes, comming together to one common hobby seriously i believe if they take car audio from us this world will be in areally bad state...here it is we boost the economy by buying expensive equipment and we do constructive things like build boxes and rewire cars and such, and we use our brains to calculate things, and we try to make it look appealing to the eye..if we cant do that anymore...the mayor will have more problems on his hands other than speakers being no bigger than 1foot..lol..he buggin
80 if i have alot of typos so what...i'm pissed..fuc,king mayor bloomburg trying to do the same shi.t here in ny for 2007...well its not as bad..he wants the cops to drive with spl meteres(uncalibrated of course..lol)
-------------------- Posts: 1089 | From: WESTCHESTER NY AND BROOKLYN NY | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by truculenity: [QBRather than just seizing cars for the loud booming music like they do in Chicago[/QB]
They hear it PERIOD in chicago, your car can be impounded.
Its heavily abused... it gives the cops the ability to impound nearly any vehicle since no meter reading or witness is required. Essentially, your car broadcasts that you have $... the cops will get that thing impounded so you have to pay the 500 to get it out.
I've gotten a sound violation ticket out by my way when I was parked talking with some friends - the stereo wasn't even on. They saw I had a system, and gave me a ticket... and that was that.
quote: I can assure you that the intent is not to affect folks who will be getting a permit and entering audio competitions outside of our residential areas.
So here is another way for the state to make money what a joke you have to have a permit. So if I have a permit and I bump with in the right time of day they cant say jack. Why I guess you have to have a permit.
This will allow the local shops to have a parking lot of people with loud systems and no one can say nothing so I guess you can be as loud as you want if you own a shop and have a permit. What is this world coming to. and don't forget out side of residential areas.
-------------------- Team Xtreme Loud Audio. Team Stetsom Usa Street B Stetsom`s North America Sales Rep 1-413-433-1604 Posts: 1631 | From: Springfield Ma | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My only comment is - its not the MAYOR that is going to be enforcing this law. That may be his interpretation of it, but its the police that will be enforcing it and if they choose to interpret it a different way, and pull cars over on I-70 as we out-of-towners go bumping through, jammin on the highway, well - nothing in the letter of that law is there to stop them.
The bill is just far too broad and vague in its current form. If they are wanting to target the bumping in private neighborhoods and residential districts, then thats what they should target and define.
As it is now, all I know for sure is - I will not be going near St. Louis for quite some time.
posted
lol did you all read the most updated thing on this.
Long story short..was over turned due by the mayor due to "pressure" from the industry...
-------------------- Rob, My Ride's http://mysite.verizon.net/proaudio150/ **UPDATED 8/5** Former UsacI 301-600 Pro World Record Holder and PortWars World Record Holder (old rules). -USAC 2001 World Champion and 2001 World Finalist
"Its sometimes the journey thats fun...not the destination." Posts: 8036 | From: Huron,Oh | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
umm according to the law...a 12 would still be to large.
Could do a ton of 10's though..lol
-------------------- Rob, My Ride's http://mysite.verizon.net/proaudio150/ **UPDATED 8/5** Former UsacI 301-600 Pro World Record Holder and PortWars World Record Holder (old rules). -USAC 2001 World Champion and 2001 World Finalist
"Its sometimes the journey thats fun...not the destination." Posts: 8036 | From: Huron,Oh | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
