Big stereo could cost you your car

STL Today ^ | 01/27/2006 | Jake Wagman

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

City police would be able to seize cars blasting loud music under an ordinance passed Friday by the Board of Aldermen.

The ordinance, which would take effect once signed by Mayor Francis Slay, prohibits the use and even installation of some enhanced speakers.

Slay was out of town and unavailable for comment.

Alderman Craig Schmid's proposal easily had enough votes to pass, but only after aldermen turned up the volume on their own concerns. Impounding a car for playing loud music is too severe, opponents said, and ripe for abuse.

[Paleo Conservative]

A thousand years ago a movie called "My Cousin Vinny" was made. Watch it and you'll learn what a "Yute" is. :-)

Click on the picture.

[SALChamps03]

Fining them is ok. Make the fine hurt bad. Seizing the car is stealing.

[FunkyZero]

That's fine, but when the testosterone challenged sit outside my house in a residential neighborhood during my baby's noontime nap and sit there and rev the damn thing for the sake of showing off, I'm going to get out my wrist rocket and attract some attention of my own. It really pi**es me off.
I'm a freak motorhead and audiophile. It is true, the sound inside is far different that what you hear on the outside. What rattles mirrors on another car sounds so beautiful on the inside, done properly. Anyone who has ever enjoyed Dire Straits Sultans of Swing on a properly balanced system knows exactly what I'm talking about. However, be courteous enough to turn the damn thing down when you are sitting at stoplights or near crowds of people. Not everyone shares your enjoyment.

[dljordan]

"Oh yes, I would pay many dollars for a directed EMP device."

My dream. Little wisps of smoke curling out of their $1000 amplifier. Sweet.

[antmanbee]

Confiscating car seems severe to me.
Confiscating the stereo less so.
Stereo probably cost more than the car in many cases.
The whole point of the big thumping sound system IS to attract attention. Positive or negative.
But its aggression ...no mistake about that.
An in your face kinda aggression.
"yo dog!!....you don't like it do somfin about it mutha_____"
[and this is white kid from comfortable suburb talking]
tickets tickets tickets

[biggerten]

Impound them because they will ignore the ticket. This is not seizing the car, it's just towing it. One tow and they'll get the message.

A respectful person (one who could be trusted to pay the fine in the first place) wouldn't have one of these to begin with.

An ordinance as suggested by Bloody Sam seems reasonable, but they'll buy one over the internet or somesuch.

Tow the car, give them a little pain, end of problem.

[HIDEK6]

I have never understood how a vibrating trunk lid is considered music.

That all depends on whether it's vibrating to regular frequencies or irregular frequencies.

[postaldave]

your right, after reading it and seeing this,

"But the new measure would outlaw possessing or installing any car stereo with a speaker over a foot in diameter; having more than one speaker 10 inches in diameter; more than 10 speakers overall; more than two amplifiers; and any amplifier over 300 watts."

i can see how you can defend such communist laws. i'm always amazed at how many socialist like you can defend such laws.

[R. Scott]

I think the annoying music must have bass notes at like 4 Hertz.

Enhanced bass – to help shake loose the license plate.

[postaldave]

oh and raybbr, i own a bmw motorcycle and my truck has a stock stereo so don't call me a harley owner if you don't know what is in my garage.

[Arkinsaw]

Explain to me how having an excessively loud sound system in your car is an "essential liberty".

The essential liberty is not having your private property seized by the government for minor offenses. That is one of the most essential liberties of all. It has a lot to do with why this nation was founded.

You think this is not a problem because the minor offense is not one that you would engage in so you have no fear. But once the precedent is established then the next minor offense might be "seize house because gunlock not in place". Or "seize car because anti-abortion protestor stepped one foot too close to the abortion clinic". Then you would yell but it would be too late because the precedent is set.

By giving the government the nod on this, you are giving it the power to seize property for minor offenses. Thats fine as long as you control the government. But when Hillary takes over you might realize it was not such a good precdent to set.

[raybbr]

i can see how you can defend such communist laws. i'm always amazed at how many socialist like you can defend such laws.

Are any laws not socialst? If the people choose to install these restrictions it's up to them.

[conservativeharleyguy]

"The fella who invents the remote unidirectional AM static speaker flooding device will make a million bucks in about five minutes".

I've been trying to figure out how to do that for years. It would be the greatest tool mankind ever had. I was thinking along the lines of remotely controlling (hijacking) the volume to the point where the whole system melts down (not to mention incapacitates the occupants).

You would probably have to tint your windows so the "recipients" didn't see you point your boom-box killer at them, and then shoot you for destroying their "investment" (and infringing upon their "civil rights" of course ).

[Lucky Lyn]

You have no idea how many times I've had a car
begin to make a idiotic lane change or pull
in front of me on my Harley to which a good
crack of the throttle woke up the moron!!

[R. Scott]

That's fine, but when the testosterone challenged sit outside my house in a residential neighborhood during my baby's noontime nap and sit there and rev the damn thing for the sake of showing off, I'm going to get out my wrist rocket and attract some attention of my own. It really pi**es me off.

“Testosterone challenged”?
Yes. Everyone should exist it total and complete silence. Outlaw all internal combustion engines – cars, trucks, power mowers and blowers – only allow quiet electric tools – and then only with all our neighbors’ permission. Outlaw leather soled shoes. Outlaw aircraft below 30,000 feet.

[RightWinger]

I don't think anything is too severe...

You're being sarcastic, right?

You need to define that better.

Is death too severe in your book?

[Triggerhippie]

Which tells me that the Harley is meant primarily as a surrogate for the penis. Big bike, little wee-wee.

Every Harley I've ever seen has always had a large penis on it. (Ususally not wearing a helmet either.)

[raybbr]

...don't call me a harley owner...

I wrote: "As for the Harley riders? Why do they think its fun to ride through the neighborhood waking up babies sleeping in their cribs?"

Where did I call you a Harley rider? Taking this a bit personally, aren't you?

[raybbr]

You have no idea how many times I've had a car begin to make a idiotic lane change or pull in front of me on my Harley to which a good crack of the throttle woke up the moron!!

Horn broke?

[Cheburashka]

Why not just enforce existing laws?
---
The local muckity-mucks have to write new laws to justify their being muckity-mucks. Enforcing the laws already written might mean having to increase the police force and raise taxes, which will annoy the taxpayers, and might come back to haunt Mr(s). Muckity-muck come election time.
Seizing property means reselling the property and raising money. The only person who loses out is the person whose property is seized. Of course the police department starts to emphasize the the officers the value to the municipality of enforcing the seizure ordinances more vigorously than run of the mill ordinances.
It all works beautifully for everyone, except the schmuck who gets the "seizure tax bill". Until, of course, YOU turn out to be the latest schmuck caught in some seizure scam.
The number of people on Free Republic who support this Barbra Streisand is an indicator of how close the lefties are to total victory in this country.