Illegal to play live music in Indiana without a permit from IN Homeland Security

[thompal]

Mostly because he asked if I thought that the rights of the collective trumped the rights of the property-owner to do as he sees fit.

The government has rules about having dangerous materials on your property to protect others from the dangers that may be caused by the waste.
The government has rules about having live music on your property to protect patrons from dangers that may be caused (as in the fire caused by indoor pyrotechnics at a Great White show).

And ALL of those rules were broken in RI, which resulted in a disaster. So tell me, how will writing MORE rules prevent that from happening, and how will putting those rules in the realm of HOMELAND SECURITY result in better results?

And just WHY is EVERYTHING coming under the jurisdiction of "The Department of Homeland Security?" They are simply becoming an ever-expanding agency, who has more and more control over every aspect of our lives. Want to have a band play at your birthday party? Better get permission from Homeland Security!

And why on earth would such enforcement be made for lives bands, when DJs and karaoke be exempt?? By definition, most rap and techno would be defined as either "a DJ" or "karaoke," since neither typically involved musicians, since both involve someone "spinning platters" or, at most, someone "singing" along with pre-recorded music.

How about a choir?? Are they "live entertainment" which requires a permit, until someone starts playing a record, at which point they are merely karaoke, which requires no Homeland Security involvement?

Are we to the point where we not only allow Homeland Security to require its permission to play music, but also to define what constitutes "live music?" It seems like it.

 

[steveh_131]

I happen to agree with you, but your last questions diminish the power of your argument. It's a fallacy to claim that someone with an opposing view is afraid of liberty. And, yes, I am incapable of checking for an acceptable number of fire doors because I don't know what an acceptable number is. Do you? Furthermore, that number is only valid with the presumption of a given maximum number of individuals present. Unless the individual the attendance is advertised and updated real-time, it would do me no good to know one bit of information if I didn't know the other.

I think you know I fall much closer to your side than the other, but I do not think that calling any and all regulation of public places for safety standards is nanny, statist, or tyrannical.

Statist pig!

In all seriousness, I do feel confident in my ability to judge how crowded a room is relative to the number of doors available. I avoid crowded places in general. Perhaps I err on the side of caution.

I do think that all government regulation of safety standards is the very definition of the nanny state. Everyone here wants to discuss just where on the scale of nannyism we belong, but that doesn't change what it is.

It really comes down to a simple concept. Do you believe that the government should be in the business of controlling our property and behaviors for the purpose of mitigating risk? If your answer is 'yes', then welcome to the slippery slope that we are on. Government does not shrink. It only expands. Once you grant it the authority to do this, it will eventually want to control all of our property and behaviors, in the name of safety. We have watched it happen.

My answer is 'no'. It is our responsibility as consumers to utilize our own knowledge and the knowledge/investigation of private agencies to manage our own safety.

I am not scared of a life without the nanny state. I would prefer it, risks and all.

 

[onetwoonetwo]

Since all digital consoles have an inherent latency, nothing you hear at a concert is really "live," is it??
(I HATE digital consoles!!, but not for that reason)

yes. all of them. live has not really been live for a long time now.

 

[rambone]

There was nothing wrong with the "set up" of Great White in RI. That resulted from the decision-making of mainly two people: the club owner, who had crap on his walls that was extremely flammable; and the band's Road Manager, who insisted on using pyro, even after seeing the club.

The building was a business, had flammable material on the walls and ceilings, and did not have enough exits. That should have been a matter for LOCAL code enforcement.

The club had 4 exits.

2 were chained shut.

1 was reserved for the band, so a bouncer prevented people from exiting (in time).

That left 1 option.

This all happened in lieu of having a magical government permit.

The disaster was was a result of human ineptitude, which cannot be regulated away.

And ALL of those rules were broken in RI, which resulted in a disaster. So tell me, how will writing MORE rules prevent that from happening, and how will putting those rules in the realm of HOMELAND SECURITY result in better results?

+1

 

[hornadylnl]

Let me update the score card here.

A restaurant owner in Muncie has a duty of care to his customers if he wants to play his own guitar in his restaurant because of a fire that happened at a Great White concert in Rhode Island 10 years ago.

The only way to ensure that a duty of care is carried out is a government inspection by a fire marshal with a corresponding permission slip.

A government inspection isn't necessary when it comes to private shooting ranges because there hasn't been any incidents that necessitated inspections. Oh, that was proven wrong. Then it was because it didn't happen locally, they weren't necessary. Oh, that was proven wrong.

So, since the only way to ensure that a duty of care is carried out is a government inspection by the appropriate marshal and a corresponding permission slip, do private range owners have a duty of care to their neighbors?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

A restaurant owner in Muncie has a duty of care to his customers if he wants to play his own guitar in his restaurant because of a fire that happened at a Great White concert in Rhode Island 10 years ago.

Incorrect. A owner has a duty of care regardless if he wishes to play a guitar or not. A owner has a duty of care regardless of what happened in Rhode Island ten years ago.

The only way to ensure that a duty of care is carried out is a government inspection by a fire marshal with a corresponding permission slip.

Incorrect. It is a way. It is a constitutional way, but it is not the only way. Insurance contractual duties may be better. Or, fear of litigation, a la Lia Chau, may be a better motivator.

A government inspection isn't necessary when it comes to private shooting ranges because there hasn't been any incidents that necessitated inspections.

It depends. IDEM may be involved in a public shooting range.

Private shooting ranges are not open to the public.

So, since the only way to ensure that a duty of care is carried out is a government inspection by the appropriate marshal and a corresponding permission slip, do private range owners have a duty of care to their neighbors?

Incorrect. Regardless of permission slips, private range owners have a duty of care to their neighbors.

 

[hornadylnl]

Incorrect. A owner has a duty of care regardless if he wishes to play a guitar or not. A owner has a duty of care regardless of what happened in Rhode Island ten years ago.



Incorrect. It is a way. It is a constitutional way, but it is not the only way. Insurance contractual duties may be better. Or, fear of litigation, a la Lia Chau, may be a better motivator.



It depends. IDEM may be involved in a public shooting range.

Private shooting ranges are not open to the public.



Incorrect. Regardless of permission slips, private range owners have a duty of care to their neighbors.

Had a range marshal inspected the private range in the article I linked, maybe a widow and 3 children would still have a father. How can a range that allows a 45 cal handgun to miss a backstop, penetrate a wall and kill a guy be suitable?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Had a range marshal inspected the private range in the article I linked, maybe a widow and 3 children would still have a father. How can a range that allows a 45 cal handgun to miss a backstop, penetrate a wall and kill a guy be suitable?

Show me the statute, ordinance or IAC which creates such a position.

I don't know if it is suitable. That will be for a jury to determine, but there will be much talk about duties of the range owner.

 

[Hohn]

^^^^ This.

There have been enough problems in the past to prove that fire marshals are need to keep the public safe. I have been a been a union stage hand and worked hundreds of concerts. The promoters only worry about money. State fair tragedy ring a bell? People are free to come and go...

...but if the choose to "risk it" they shouldn't have an undue burden placed on them by overcrowding the venue.

Huh? People are free, except they aren't?

If you don't like the overcrowding, don't go. Period. Caveat emptor, all that free people stuff.


I'm amazed how many fire and LEOs are paternalistic statists because THEY are on the giving, not the receiving end of it.


How about we do a "safety" inspection of the local fire station?

Do they have handicapped parking spaces required by the ADA?

I bet the pole they slide down may pose an undue risk of injury.

I'm guessing the diesel fuel that powers their trucks is a potential fire hazard. And I'm sure that every fire station has all their hydrocarbons and combustibles properly stored in a flammables locker and they would never violate a single environmental regulation. You know with changing the hydraulic fluids and engine oil and all that.

Not to mention that immense danger of overexertion and strain, which is the most common injury among firefighters (see page four).

Since overexertion and strain are the most common firefighter injuries, it's obvious that firefighters are not strong enough (in aggregate) to do their jobs.

It might be time for a new regulatory agency to enforce some firefighter physical fitness standards on them-- and require them to be a LICENSED FIREFIGHTER only after passing this extremely rigorous testing.

What? Gov't meddling in your business is not fun? You don't say.....

 

[Hohn]

Had a range marshal inspected the private range in the article I linked, maybe a widow and 3 children would still have a father. How can a range that allows a 45 cal handgun to miss a backstop, penetrate a wall and kill a guy be suitable?

Yeah, and if yet another FAA inspection had been required of the small plane that crashed a couple days ago into a house near me, then they guys wouldn't have been burned.

And the house would be saved.


What's your point? That freedom sucks because sometimes people use it irresponsibly?


You know how that reasoning ends up, right?

 

[hornadylnl]

Yeah, and if yet another FAA inspection had been required of the small plane that crashed a couple days ago into a house near me, then they guys wouldn't have been burned.

And the house would be saved.


What's your point? That freedom sucks because sometimes people use it irresponsibly?


You know how that reasoning ends up, right?

That was sarcasm Sheldon.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Pardon me, sarcasm inspector here.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

So where are we now

One thing that is clear is that there is no way that any of us can accurately establish the extent to which the questioned government regulations (insert "insidious interference if you wish) have either overall saved or doomed us.

We have all been born, grown up (more or less), and have lived in their company all of our lives. You can list instances where they have certainly appeared to be of benefit, just as well as you can list instances where they have appeared to not be of benefit, or even have been a hindrance. But they are ubiquitous, and you might as well imagine a society without fashion-sense.

You can talk all day long about the philosophy of self-preservation and self-responsibility, but why is it that you will find nowhere where people live together without rules?

 

[evsnova74]

One thing that is clear is that there is no way that any of us can accurately establish the extent to which the questioned government regulations (insert "insidious interference if you wish) have either overall saved or doomed us.

We have all been born, grown up (more or less), and have lived in their company all of our lives. You can list instances where they have certainly appeared to be of benefit, just as well as you can list instances where they have appeared to not be of benefit, or even have been a hindrance. But they are ubiquitous, and you might as well imagine a society without fashion-sense.

You can talk all day long about the philosophy of self-preservation and self-responsibility, but why is it that you will find nowhere where people live together without rules?

I can't speak for anyone else but I'm pretty sure no one is against regulations qua regulations. The question is who is better at meeting the demand the people obviously have for regulations, a violent monopoly or numerous private companies competing for market share? We all know monopolies are bad, and couple that with the anecdotal common knowledge that everything the gov't touches turns to **** and it makes the choice pretty clear. And unless one has specifics, "private companies have failed at regulation in the past" is a bit of a non sequitur. When I say "private companies", I'm not talking about the companies being regulated, I'm talking about private companies that provide regulation, like UL. Pretty sure they did just fine, after all they're still there...

A good company will want to pay a quality regulatory agency to regulate their products and give them their seal of approval so that purchasing that product off the shelf is more enticing to consumers. A crappy company won't give two ****s and may very well put a bad or dangerous product on the market, but this is not a long term strategy. Once word gets out and their reputation is ruined they're done. Many things like this are self regulatory on the market. I know that personally I "demand" that my food is inspected, and I would trust "Private food inspection company X" over the FDA any day... I suppose one could claim that if no violent monopoly is forcing these private companies to get their products inspected by these imaginary private regulatory agencies that they simply wouldn't get their products inspected at all. My response would be that people "voting with their dollar" will force them to.

 

[steveh_131]

You can talk all day long about the philosophy of self-preservation and self-responsibility, but why is it that you will find nowhere where people live together without rules?

Who said anything about living without rules?

 

[steveh_131]

I can't speak for anyone else but I'm pretty sure no one is against regulations qua regulations. The question is who is better at meeting the demand the people obviously have for regulations, a violent monopoly or numerous private companies competing for market share? We all know monopolies are bad, and couple that with the anecdotal common knowledge that everything the gov't touches turns to **** and it makes the choice pretty clear. And unless one has specifics, "private companies have failed at regulation in the past" is a bit of a non sequitur. When I say "private companies", I'm not talking about the companies being regulated, I'm talking about private companies that provide regulation, like UL. Pretty sure they did just fine, after all they're still there...

A good company will want to pay a quality regulatory agency to regulate their products and give them their seal of approval so that purchasing that product off the shelf is more enticing to consumers. A crappy company won't give two ****s and may very well put a bad or dangerous product on the market, but this is not a long term strategy. Once word gets out and their reputation is ruined they're done. Many things like this are self regulatory on the market. I know that personally I "demand" that my food is inspected, and I would trust "Private food inspection company X" over the FDA any day... I suppose one could claim that if no violent monopoly is forcing these private companies to get their products inspected by these imaginary private regulatory agencies that they simply wouldn't get their products inspected at all. My response would be that people "voting with their dollar" will force them to.

All of this is very true. UL is a perfect example. Consumer reports is another.

In addition, the 'rule of law' is maintained by civil and criminal litigation, even without all of the nanny state regulations. If you cause damage to someone, expect to be held accountable.

 

[Sgtusmc]

snopes.com: Department of Homeland Security Requires Permits for Live Music?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So, why the sudden quiet over the nonsense the OP posted in this thread after the snopes citation?

What was the result of the admin hearing? Is there civil litigation over this?

Sure did get quiet about snopes was dropped.

 

[mrjarrell]

Snopes is only believed by some people when it supports their point of view. And used by the same.

 

[LEaSH]

You want some sortta apology or sumthin?