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

[BigBoxaJunk]

Have you ever heard of Stockholm Syndrome? Government regulation is not what made our nation great. The fact that you think it is responsible for all of the good things that we have is quite troubling.

I don't believe that government oversight is responsible for all of the good things that we have, and I don't believe in the mindset that it should. I obviously wouldn't be a devout and creative prepper or the owner of so many self-defense guns if I did. If there was a disaster in my area, believe me a relief center would be the last place that I'd want to be; don't need it, don't want it.

One thing I am sure of is that, to a certain extent, that mindset is apparently genetically hardwired into more people than not, and I see it as an inevitable outcome when large numbers of people, who have the ability to decide which rules that they want live together in close proximity.

 

[steveh_131]

You answer none of my questions substantively, provide a newsflash thats not a news flash and then draw a conclusion on my mental capacity IF I commit your qualifying action. You just aren't that convincing.

My answer is "yes". Take responsibility for yourself. If a situation looks unsafe, leave. My point is that you are probably already doing this. Why are you so scared?

 

[steveh_131]

I don't believe that government oversight is responsible for all of the good things that we have, and I don't believe in the mindset that it should. I obviously wouldn't be a devout and creative prepper or the owner of so many self-defense guns if I did. If there was a disaster in my area, believe me a relief center would be the last place that I'd want to be; don't need it, don't want it.

One thing I am sure of is that, to a certain extent, that mindset is apparently genetically hardwired into more people than not, and I see it as an inevitable outcome when large numbers of people, who have the ability to decide which rules that they want live together in close proximity.

I don't disagree with any of this.

 

[foszoe]

My answer is "yes". Take responsibility for yourself. If a situation looks unsafe, leave. My point is that you are probably already doing this. Why are you so scared?

1. How do you know I am scared?
2. How did you educate yourself to know the maximum safe occupancy for any building?

They are real questions. Either answer them honestly or ignore them.

 

[churchmouse]

We are involved in a re-hab to a historical structure in downtown indy. Not only do we have to answer to the Historical society which I understand but a copy of all blue prints have to go through the DHS locally for approval. WTF is this about. Yes, they are collecting fee's for this. What do those idiots have to do with re-hab on a 100 year old bld. Are they afraid it will be a stopping point for a terrorist cell.....WTF

 

[Kirk Freeman]

but a copy of all blue prints have to go through the DHS locally for approval. WTF is this about. Yes, they are collecting fee's for this. What do those idiots have to do with re-hab on a 100 year old bld.

Fire safety inspection.

 

[jbombelli]

As a musician (well, drummer really...) who has played a lot of live shows in a lot of different venues, I see both sides of this. I don't want to be playing some gig sometime and have the floor give way underneath me because the beams I couldn't see were rotted and the place overcrowded. I also don't think it's right that you could have 500 people in a place drinking and shooting pool, and then suddenly it becomes unsafe and you need a permit as soon as someone gets out a guitar.

I don't see a need for a separate permit just to have live music. Either the place is safe and approved for occupancy up to a certain number, or it isn't. Having live music as opposed to a half dozen pool tables, flatscreen TVs, a blaring jukebox and good microbrews on tap doesn't really make a difference.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Either the place is safe and approved for occupancy up to a certain number, or it isn't. Having live music as opposed to a half dozen pool tables, flatscreen TVs, a blaring jukebox and good microbrews on tap doesn't really make a difference.

Exactly the kind of arbitrary and capricious argument that needs to be brought up by the tavern owner.

Time to reform the state's fire code.

 

[churchmouse]

Fire safety inspection.

No, that is seperate deal from my understanding. I am submitting drawings for HVAC and can not for the life of me understand WTF DHS has to do with this.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Well, let's take a gander.

 

[churchmouse]

As a musician (well, drummer really...) who has played a lot of live shows in a lot of different venues, I see both sides of this. I don't want to be playing some gig sometime and have the floor give way underneath me because the beams I couldn't see were rotted and the place overcrowded. I also don't think it's right that you could have 500 people in a place drinking and shooting pool, and then suddenly it becomes unsafe and you need a permit as soon as someone gets out a guitar.

I don't see a need for a separate permit just to have live music. Either the place is safe and approved for occupancy up to a certain number, or it isn't. Having live music as opposed to a half dozen pool tables, flatscreen TVs, a blaring jukebox and good microbrews on tap doesn't really make a difference.

Commercial Insurance company's should do these safety inspections or require the state bld. inspectors to perform their duty's. I just can not see the need for another agency getting involved. They were set up to protect us from terrorists........................Yes???

 

[Kirk Freeman]

They were set up to protect us from terrorists........................Yes???

Not exactly. More like the Weberian once a bureaucracy loses sight of its goals it redoubles its efforts.

Was the building you were on the job for a Class I structure?

 

[churchmouse]

Not exactly. More like the Weberian once a bureaucracy loses sight of its goals it redoubles its efforts.

Was the building you were on the job for a Class I structure?

I have to look that up. I am pulling my quote off the prints supplied by the architect. I then have to submit my drawings separate from his as mine will be correct and his were, as always, just a guideline.
This is more than 100 years old and has sat vacant for many years with huge gaps in the roof so all the interior structure has to be demo'd and replaced. The new owner is making it into high end apartments for the inner city professionals. No commercial space.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

IC 22-12-1-4

"Class 1 structure"
Sec. 4. (a) "Class 1 structure" means any part of the following:
(1) A building or structure that is intended to be or is occupied or otherwise used in any part by any of the following:
(A) The public.
(B) Three (3) or more tenants.
(C) One (1) or more persons who act as the employees of another.
(2) A site improvement affecting access by persons with physical disabilities to a building or structure described in subdivision (1).
(3) Outdoor event equipment.
(4) Any class of buildings or structures that the commission determines by rules to affect a building or structure described
in subdivision (1), except buildings or structures described in subsections (c) through (f).
(b) Subsection (a)(1) includes a structure that contains three (3) or more condominium units (as defined in IC 32-25-2-9) or other units that:
(1) are intended to be or are used or leased by the owner of the unit; and
(2) are not completely separated from each other by an unimproved space.
(c) Subsection (a)(1) does not include a building or structure that:
(1) is intended to be or is used only for an agricultural purpose on the land where it is located; and
(2) is not used for retail trade or is a stand used for retail sales of farm produce for eight (8) or less consecutive months in a calendar year.
(d) Subsection (a)(1) does not include a Class 2 structure.
(e) Subsection (a)(1) does not include a vehicular bridge.
(f) Subsection (a)(1) does not include a structure that is intended to be or is occupied solely to provide periodic maintenance or repair of:
(1) the structure; or

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Sounds like you are on a Class 1 structure, church. Class 1 remodels go to fire marshal/IDHS.

If you can tell me the name of the project I can look it up after yoga and my run.

 

[steveh_131]

The free market can handle all of this. There are already civilian organizations that inspect and certify safety and quality. In the absence of government interference, manufacturers would strive to achieve these and gain more profit potential in doing so.

Companies attempt to utilize safe practices because it is profitable for them to do so. Right now, potential fines are what make it profitable. Instead, let's use the free market to make it profitable.

 

[hornadylnl]

The free market can handle all of this. There are already civilian organizations that inspect and certify safety and quality. In the absence of government interference, manufacturers would strive to achieve these and gain more profit potential in doing so.

Companies attempt to utilize safe practices because it is profitable for them to do so. Right now, potential fines are what make it profitable. Instead, let's use the free market to make it profitable.

It's harder for me to control your property usage through a civilian agency than a government one.

 

[churchmouse]

Sounds like you are on a Class 1 structure, church. Class 1 remodels go to fire marshal/IDHS.

If you can tell me the name of the project I can look it up after yoga and my run.

I just verified this as well.

I am OK with the fire marshal. That is a given.

Looks like another hand will be out in the process. Reminds me of the witch in the original Sinbad the sailor movie....just cross my palm with silver and you will know all.

 

[jbombelli]

The free market can handle all of this. There are already civilian organizations that inspect and certify safety and quality. In the absence of government interference, manufacturers would strive to achieve these and gain more profit potential in doing so.

Companies attempt to utilize safe practices because it is profitable for them to do so. Right now, potential fines are what make it profitable. Instead, let's use the free market to make it profitable.

As devil's advocate here, historically that's not been proven to be true. Companies don't utilize safe practices - they take the cheapest route possible in an effort to maximize profits. If companies always took took the safe route, there'd be no OSHA, there'd no be no fire or building inspections, none of it. All of these came about as a result of companies taking the cheap route instead of the safe route.

And it's hard to sue someone for negligence when you're dead due to a building falling on you, and they're dead too because they were in there with you gambling that the building would hold up indefinitely.

 

[foszoe]

It's harder for me to control your property usage through a civilian agency than a government one.

Money = control civilian or gov't. Not sure how to substantiate you claim. Maybe you can.