[kickinband]

After hearing no reply from our Pa State senator regarding a law change for liquor licensees, I wrote him yet another letter:

Please keep everyone involved on this issue. We need the support of all tavern owners, musicians and supporters of live music on our side. Please send me all names of establishments within the state that you know want to take part in this battle. Also, any musician or supporter of music that has seen first hand cases of establishments shutting down bands and other sorts of music because of the Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement, please forward your name and email address to me.
Thank you,
Steve Mattis
steve@countryinnbar.com


Dear Mr. John Wozniak,
I previously wrote you a letter concerning a matter of unfair practices that is happening in your District as well as the entire Commonwealth of Pa. These unfair practices involve the BLCE and the written laws of the PLCB. You know of one case involving the city of Johnstown and the Visitors Center regarding the mis-use of profits from a temporary licensee. This is one example of how badly we need updated state laws concerning liquor licensees. I read your committment to the citizens of your District in the December 11th, Sunday Edition of the Johnstown Tribune Democrat. In that article, you mention you will fight to have that law changed so that the Visitors Bureau can in the future obtain a temporary license. I agree with you 100 percent. I think it needs to be done. Furthermore, I think a few more laws need to me amended as well. I know those laws are written to protect licensees as well as citizens. However, because of the language used in some of these old laws, it creates injustices for law abiding citizens and businesses. For example, a problem occurs when one person in a community, for whatever reason doesn't like an establishment operating a legal business. They can complain to the BLCE and use the loopholes in the law to have that business harrassed and possibly fined, shut down and stamped as a Nuissance Bar. When in all reality, they do care about the community, they are not being loud and disorderly, and they hire employees to help operate their business. Below, I have copied and pasted a page off the BLCE website about how to report an establishment that is loud and disorderly. Now remember, LOUD AND DISORDERLY are very strong words. I wouldn't want a loud and disorderly bar next to my home either. But the law is written as; if any noise is heard outside the establishment what so ever, they are not compliant and subject to citations. When in most cases, the noise heard outside the establishment wouldn't even measure on a decimeter. All establishments that hold liquor licenses in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania should be treated fairly. Lets come up with language in this law that defines "accurately" with "instrumentation", how loud an establishment "is" or "is not". I do not stand alone in this debate. I will upon request supply you with countless pages of other establishments that share my issues. I am sure as our State Senator, you will address this issue with us, (the Pa state liquor license holders) in a timely manner the same way you addressed the issue with the City of Johnstown Visitors Bureau. I am certain that our elected officials are working for us and want to hear our concerns involving our businesses.

I am forwarding a copy of this letter to the Johnstown Tribune Democrat Readers Forum and to http://www.rockpage.net

Thank you,
Mr. Stephen E. Mattis, Sr
Owner: Country Inn Bar & Grille

[lonewolf]

While your letter may be eloquent, you didn't tell the Senator what rule you want to change. The rule in question is:

PA Code Title 40 S5.32(a) Noise Rule

and it reads:

A licensee may not use or permit to be used inside or outside of the licensed premises a loudspeaker or similar device whereby the sound of music or other entertainment, or the advertisement thereof, can be heard on the outside of the licensed premises.

You may even want to copy and paste this legal info so he can see exactly what you want done:

The reason for petitioning this change is that the rule in question is legally vague:

According to CONSTITUTIONAL LAW k82(4) 92k82(4) Formerly 92k82 and
CRIMINAL LAW k13.1(1)110k13.1(1):

"Vague laws offend several important values: first, vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning; second, vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application; and third, where a vague statute abuts on sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms, it operates to inhibit the exercise of those freedoms. U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 1, 14."

First, the phrase "can be heard outside of the licensed premises" does not provide fair warning, since it does not specify what standard of hearing is used. A licensee with poor hearing ability may judge their premises to be in compliance with the rule, while an enforcing officer with excellent hearing ability may find the premises in violation. [FN1]

Second, the same phrase impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to the enforcing officer and the subsequent judicial for resolution on a subjective basis, since they have full discretion as to what constitutes a violation. With this broad power of discretion, there are attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application. [FN2]

Third, the same phrase will inhibit the exercise of basic First Amendment freedoms, since the phrase's uncertain meanings will lead licensees to 'steer far wider of the unlawful zone'…'than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked'. Once found in violation, a licensee may refrain from providing entertainment altogether. This is unlawful 'prior restraint'.[FN3]

FN1. E.g., Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 162, 92 S.Ct. 839, 843, 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972); Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, 368 U.S. 278, 287, 82 S.Ct. 275, 280, 7 L.Ed.2d 285 (1961);United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617, 74 S.Ct. 808, 811, 98 L.Ed. 989 (1954); Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223, 230--232, 71 S.Ct. 703, 707--708, 95 L.Ed. 886 (1951); Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 453, 59 S.Ct. 618, 619, 83 L.Ed. 888 (1939); Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926); United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81, 89, 41 S.Ct. 298, 300, 65 L.Ed. 516 (1921); International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 216, 223--224, 34 S.Ct. 853, 855--856, 58 L.Ed. 1284 (1914).

FN2. E.g., Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, supra; Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 614, 91 S.Ct. 1686, 1688, 29 L.Ed.2d 214 (1971); Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U.S. 111, 120, 89 S.Ct. 946, 951, 22 L.Ed.2d 134 (1969) (Black, J., concurring); Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas, 390 U.S. 676, 684--685, 88 S.Ct. 1298, 1303--1304, 20 L.Ed.2d 225 (1968); Ashton v. Kentucky, 384 U.S. 195, 200, 86 S.Ct. 1407, 1410, 16 L.Ed.2d 469 (1966); Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399, 86 S.Ct. 518, 15 L.Ed.2d 447 (1966); Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87, 90--91, 86 S.Ct. 211, 213--214, 15 L.Ed.2d 176 (1965); Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290, 71 S.Ct. 312, 95 L.Ed. 280 (s951); Saia v. New York, 334 U.S. 558, 559--560, 68 S.Ct. 1148, 1149, 92 L.Ed. 1574 (1948);Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 97--98, 60 S.Ct. 736, 741--742, 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940); Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 261--264, 57 S.Ct. 732, 740--742, 81 L.Ed. 1066 (1937).

FN3. Where First Amendment interests are affected, a precise statute 'evincing a legislative judgment that certain specific conduct be . . . proscribed,' Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 236, 83 S.Ct. 680, 684, 9 L.Ed.2d 697 (1963), assures us that the legislature has focused on the First Amendment interests and determined that other governmental policies compel regulation. See Kalven, The Concept of the Public Forum: Cox v. Louisiana, 1965 Sup.Ct.Rev. 1, 32; Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157, 200, 202, 82 S.Ct. 248, 271--272, 7 L.Ed.2d 207 (1961) (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment).
_________________


Proposed Change:

Replace:

A licensee may not use or permit to be used inside or outside of the licensed premises a loudspeaker or similar device whereby the sound of music or other entertainment, or the advertisement thereof, can be heard on the outside of the licensed premises.

With:

A licensee may not use or permit to be used within the real property boundary of the licensed premises, a loudspeaker or similar device whereby the sound of music or other entertainment, or the advertisement thereof produces a sound pressure level which exceeds 62 decibels(A) for a duration of two minutes when measured from another real property at or beyond the real property boundary of the licensed premises.

Measurements are taken in sound pressure level units called decibels with a frequency weighting type A, using a conventional sound level meter which meets or exceeds the requirements for an ANSI Type S1A or Type S2A Sound Level Meter as specified by the American National Standards Institute specification, ANSI S1.43, or the latest approved revision thereof.
_________________
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...

[kickinband]

Lonewolf,
I did include that in the letter that I did send to him. I just didn't want to put that on the forum here because you had it posted on here already. By the way, I thank you for that. That was very well written. Who put that all together for you.

[lonewolf]