Okay. That makes sense. For example, federal regulations mandate certain
area's conduct emissions testing on vehicles. But states do NOT have to
enforce it. However, if they do not, they lose certain grants/aid/monies
etc.

But as far as this subject goes....this is NOT a new "law". It's simply
verbiage added to an existing law(ratified/amended) at the state level,
taken from the federal level.

Don

"Dave VanHorn" wrote in message
...
M-Tech" wrote in message
... You're telling me state
officials can't enforce federal law????

It may be that they can't enforce federal regulation (as opposed to law).
IANAL.

The FCC had a bulletin on this some time back which explained it in terms
of making it possible for local authorities to enforce FCC regs.

--
KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org
Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:27:49 -0400, "Dr.X"
wrote:

"itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge" wrote
in message ...
"Dr.X" wrote in
:

"itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge"
wrote in message ...
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2003 HOUSE BILL 257
RATIFIED BILL AN ACT TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF CITIZENS BAND RADIO
EQUIPMENT NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.
The General Assembly
...

Federal law trumps state law no matter what side the state law takes.
Any normal judge would just say that a rule already exists to address
the issue so state level action is a waste of time and taxpayers
money.

-Dr.X


The FCC passed juridstiction over to local/state level for enforcement.
they are well within thier rights.

But doesn't that just mean enforcing existing federal regulations? I don't
think local laws need to be passed for local enforcement of a federal law. I
could be wrong. I'm not a lawyer. :-)

-Dr.X


It's quite obvious that you are not a lawyer. States are free to pass
any law that does not conflict with federal regulation. In this case,
the state's law compliments the federal statute, and does not come in
conflict with the federal law.


Raymond Sirois KAXN-9546
SysOp: The Lost Chord BBS
607-733-5745
telnet://thelostchord.dns2go.com:6000

"M-Tech" wrote in message
...
Okay. That makes sense. For example, federal regulations mandate certain
area's conduct emissions testing on vehicles. But states do NOT have to
enforce it. However, if they do not, they lose certain grants/aid/monies
etc.

But as far as this subject goes....this is NOT a new "law". It's simply
verbiage added to an existing law(ratified/amended) at the state level,
taken from the federal level.

Don

Whatever they want to call it, it's still going to be a waste of time and
money. Reading up on it, it appears it comes from some local (Sheriff Rosco
P. Coltrane maybe) charging a citizen using the FCC's rules. The offender
was causing interference in the television and telephone of his neighbor. It
was appealed and the defendant won. So Rosco asked Boss Hogg if they can get
clarification of the law. Boss Hogg obliged and is now in the process of
getting the clarification.

Meanwhile, Uncle Jessie probably was just running a little heat so he and
Daisy can talk to the Duke Boys while they were out jumpin' over hollers
with The General Lee.... :-|

-Dr.X

"KAXN-9546" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:27:49 -0400, "Dr.X"
wrote:

"itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge"
wrote
in message ...
"Dr.X" wrote in
:

"itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge"
wrote in message ...
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2003 HOUSE BILL 257
RATIFIED BILL AN ACT TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF CITIZENS BAND RADIO
EQUIPMENT NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.
The General Assembly
...

Federal law trumps state law no matter what side the state law takes.
Any normal judge would just say that a rule already exists to address
the issue so state level action is a waste of time and taxpayers
money.

-Dr.X


The FCC passed juridstiction over to local/state level for enforcement.
they are well within thier rights.

But doesn't that just mean enforcing existing federal regulations? I
don't
think local laws need to be passed for local enforcement of a federal
law. I
could be wrong. I'm not a lawyer. :-)

-Dr.X


It's quite obvious that you are not a lawyer. States are free to pass
any law that does not conflict with federal regulation. In this case,
the state's law compliments the federal statute, and does not come in
conflict with the federal law.

And you ARE a lawyer? I bow to your knowledge and experience, Perry Mason.

-Dr.X

You would think people would have the common courtesy NOT to operate a phone
or television within "X" distance from an illegal CB station :-)

The LEAST the guy can do is move!!

Don

"Dr.X" wrote in message
...
"M-Tech" wrote in message
...
Okay. That makes sense. For example, federal regulations mandate
certain
area's conduct emissions testing on vehicles. But states do NOT have to
enforce it. However, if they do not, they lose certain grants/aid/monies
etc.

But as far as this subject goes....this is NOT a new "law". It's simply
verbiage added to an existing law(ratified/amended) at the state level,
taken from the federal level.

Don

Whatever they want to call it, it's still going to be a waste of time and
money. Reading up on it, it appears it comes from some local (Sheriff
Rosco
P. Coltrane maybe) charging a citizen using the FCC's rules. The offender
was causing interference in the television and telephone of his neighbor.
It
was appealed and the defendant won. So Rosco asked Boss Hogg if they can
get
clarification of the law. Boss Hogg obliged and is now in the process of
getting the clarification.

Meanwhile, Uncle Jessie probably was just running a little heat so he and
Daisy can talk to the Duke Boys while they were out jumpin' over hollers
with The General Lee.... :-|

-Dr.X

You don't have to bow....what he said is exactly what YOU said.

He's obviously not a lawyer either:-)

Don

"Dr.X" wrote in message
...
"KAXN-9546" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:27:49 -0400, "Dr.X"
wrote:

"itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge"
wrote
in message ...
"Dr.X" wrote in
:

"itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge"
wrote in message ...
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2003 HOUSE BILL 257
RATIFIED BILL AN ACT TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF CITIZENS BAND RADIO
EQUIPMENT NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.
The General Assembly
...

Federal law trumps state law no matter what side the state law
takes.
Any normal judge would just say that a rule already exists to
address
the issue so state level action is a waste of time and taxpayers
money.

-Dr.X


The FCC passed juridstiction over to local/state level for
enforcement.
they are well within thier rights.

But doesn't that just mean enforcing existing federal regulations? I
don't
think local laws need to be passed for local enforcement of a federal
law. I
could be wrong. I'm not a lawyer. :-)

-Dr.X


It's quite obvious that you are not a lawyer. States are free to pass
any law that does not conflict with federal regulation. In this case,
the state's law compliments the federal statute, and does not come in
conflict with the federal law.

And you ARE a lawyer? I bow to your knowledge and experience, Perry Mason.

-Dr.X

good one dr x!..lol
"Dr.X" wrote in message
...
| "M-Tech" wrote in message
| ...
| Okay. That makes sense. For example, federal regulations mandate
certain
| area's conduct emissions testing on vehicles. But states do NOT have to
| enforce it. However, if they do not, they lose certain
grants/aid/monies
| etc.
|
| But as far as this subject goes....this is NOT a new "law". It's simply
| verbiage added to an existing law(ratified/amended) at the state level,
| taken from the federal level.
|
| Don
|
| Whatever they want to call it, it's still going to be a waste of time and
| money. Reading up on it, it appears it comes from some local (Sheriff
Rosco
| P. Coltrane maybe) charging a citizen using the FCC's rules. The offender
| was causing interference in the television and telephone of his neighbor.
It
| was appealed and the defendant won. So Rosco asked Boss Hogg if they can
get
| clarification of the law. Boss Hogg obliged and is now in the process of
| getting the clarification.
|
| Meanwhile, Uncle Jessie probably was just running a little heat so he and
| Daisy can talk to the Duke Boys while they were out jumpin' over hollers
| with The General Lee.... :-|
|
| -Dr.X
|
|

"M-Tech" wrote in message
...
You would think people would have the common courtesy NOT to operate a
phone
or television within "X" distance from an illegal CB station :-)

The LEAST the guy can do is move!!

Don

Heh-heh...yeah, get the hell out of my neighborhood if you can't take the
heat. ;-)

What's up with that anyway? It seems that on the back of most consumer
electronics there's a notice saying it must not cause interference and it
must accept interference. What's it going to be? If my radio causes
interference, is my neighbor supposed to just take it because the notice
says so? And if that's the case, why should I as an op worry about it? I
think it should read one way or the other, not both ways to accommodate the
FCC. It should read something like "must not cause interference and if it
gets interference you should load a shot gun and find the CB prick that's
running 4kw to talk to the guy down the street" or something of that nature.

-Dr.X (not emitting interferons to the best of my knowledge)

"harvey" wrote in message
t...
good one dr x!..lol

Thanks Harvey.. yeah I get bored sometimes. :-)

-Dr.X

What's up with that anyway? It seems that on the back of most consumer
electronics there's a notice saying it must not cause interference and it
must accept interference. What's it going to be? If my radio causes
interference, is my neighbor supposed to just take it because the notice
says so? And if that's the case, why should I as an op worry about it?

They do create a bit of an ambiguous situation.
When two unlicenced devices interfere, it would appear that both are SOL.
If a type-accepted CB device is interfering with a part 15 device, then as I
understand it, the part 15 device is SOL.

--
KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org
Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR