"Ed Price" wrote
"Jack Painter" wrote in message
Mostly one sea-lawyer's rant in this group, was that it is illegal to
interfere with any radio signal, etc. That opinion is absent of
understanding the intent of that law, or where it may be applied.

On private property, one may install any device, counter-signal,
shielding,
etc that prevent or otherwise render inoperable any other signal that
enters
or tries to leave that property.


Your wishes do not carry the force of law. Certainly, you may shield your
property from unwanted emissions. However, can you cite any allowance for
deliberate jammers, especially for a licensed service, in the CFR?

Ed
wb6wsn
Ed,

Don't mistake my comments as inviting anyone to break the law. But also
avoid the trap of thinking that permission from the government is required
in order for you to act.

I've noticed that good Amateur Radio operators behave in a most responsible
fashion, proud of the responsiblity and mindful of the consequences of radio
operation. But the word priviledge is something reserved for a
self-regulated hobby like amateur radio, not the law. The law and the
constitution do not grant citizens "priviledges".

In a previous part of this thread a member already gave the example of
intentional radiators (low power) allowed. If that (part 15 ?) exemption was
not there, it would still not make the force of law any more permissable for
government to interfere with the rights of a property owner, as long as (he)
was not harming interstate commerce, which is the currently used
(wider-than-hell and not always defendable) definition for every new
encroachment on our Constitution. Patriot act definitions will probably not
survive long enough to be tried in a court, but if they were the standard,
even the rumour that you were thinking about signals would subject you to a
search.

73's,

Jack