I'm wondering if this is actually constitutional. Does owning a certain piece of round cardboard make you an enemy of the state. Granted, this is probably aimed at poor black people in the city who won't bother to take this to the supreme court and have good lawyers beat the law senseless, but when a law like this is so transparent, how does it ever get passed? Just a way to collect more money and shut people up.

Eh, the argument could be made that this would fall under the 10th Amendment since it's not the federal government doing it. Still, it should get smacked into submission when (if it gets signed in to law) it eventually goes to court.

I support it to an extent. I personally think anyone driving through a residental area (day or night) with their system blasting needs to be shot. But on busy roads and highways where there aren't any homes, I say why not, as long as it isn't way too overboard.

I don't think they should be able to take your car however. Just fine them.

I get the feeling if they did try to take your car right then and there, they would have alot of problems, police getting hurt or killed, over a stereo system, just another stupid law, just like the tint laws...

Anti-noise laws have been on the books for years.


However, seizing the entire car for it is a different matter.

The impounding could cost you more than the fine from the ticket itself.

What's wrong with the tint laws? I mean, it's there for the cop's safety. I have over-tinted windows, but that doesn't mean I don't agree with the law.

How many cops you know that climb over your car and look at you through the top of your windshield?

Whats wrong with the tint laws? In missouri you can have the back and rear sides at whatever % you want, so who cares what the drivers and passengers are, if I wanted to point a shotgun through my rear glass while a cop approached me, I could still blow his head off regardless of the matter.

Thats true, its just liking being pulled over for your exhaust being too loud...

What's wrong is that the law penalizes businesses for how customers use their products.

It's wrong for guns, it's wrong for tobacco (provided that BigTobacco doesn't lie and say there are no health risks), it's wrong for P2P, it's wrong for encryption, and it's wrong for speakers.

I don't really understand what your point is... you can't fully tint your front windows so that cops can see what you're doing.

So are you saying that the Missouri laws are dumb or just tint laws? And either way, you can see a lot better into the front even if you're coming from the back and the back windows are tinted.

We live in a nanny state. There are two reasons for that. One: To establish a system of varying degrees of control. Two: To protect the innocent from the stupid and the stupid from themselves. This reason also lends itself to the first one.

Tint laws are on the books primarily because of idiots tinting to such levels that vision is impared during the day. Yes officer safety is an issue, but the aforementioned is the main reason.

There are a lot of laws that are dumb, Missouri is pretty dumb in itself. And if you have 5% tint on your back windows, I don't care what angel your approaching it at, you still can't see in it.

I think it is a state law (maybe it is just illegal in some cities) you cant have ANY brow on your front windshield.