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.

But local jusisdictions (state/county etc) can't enforce federal law.
Having a local ordinance that mirrors the federal allows them to enforce it.

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

"Dave VanHorn" wrote in message
...
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.

But local jusisdictions (state/county etc) can't enforce federal law.
Having a local ordinance that mirrors the federal allows them to enforce
it.

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



AH! maybe that's what I'm not getting.

-Dr.X

You're telling me state officials can't enforce federal law????

This just sounds to me that NC is cleaning up it's policy to mirror the feds
policy on CB equipment. They've had the authority to seek/confiscate said
equipment for as long as there has been federal legislation on CB equipment.

I googled this and can't find a bill 257 from session 2003.

Some of you can try if you wish and help me out..LOL
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascript...003&BillID=257


Don

"Dave VanHorn" wrote in message
...
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.

But local jusisdictions (state/county etc) can't enforce federal law.
Having a local ordinance that mirrors the federal allows them to enforce
it.

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

Okay, I got it. It's an AMENDED Law. Just like a said. They've ALWAYS had
the power to enforce this at ANY level. They've also always had the "law".
This is simply adding to it(ratified).

I found it he
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/html2003...0257.full.html

Don

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

This just sounds to me that NC is cleaning up it's policy to mirror the
feds policy on CB equipment. They've had the authority to seek/confiscate
said equipment for as long as there has been federal legislation on CB
equipment.

I googled this and can't find a bill 257 from session 2003.

Some of you can try if you wish and help me out..LOL
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascript...003&BillID=257


Don

"Dave VanHorn" wrote in message
...
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.

But local jusisdictions (state/county etc) can't enforce federal law.
Having a local ordinance that mirrors the federal allows them to enforce
it.

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

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

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

"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 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

"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)

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
|
|