In article , Dave Bushong
writes:

Actually, that's not automatically true. A ham was charged with
transmitting on a police frequency, using his modified ham HT, because
that was the only way he felt that he could get help for a life-
threatening injury (and it was probably an accurate assessment). But
the police said that since he had modified the radio *before* the
incident, that is when the act illegal was planned, and there is nothing
in the rules per se that says that 'emergencies negate' anything.


Only in America...

In article , Dave Bushong
writes:

Actually, that's not automatically true. A ham was charged with
transmitting on a police frequency, using his modified ham HT, because
that was the only way he felt that he could get help for a life-
threatening injury (and it was probably an accurate assessment). But
the police said that since he had modified the radio *before* the
incident, that is when the act illegal was planned, and there is nothing
in the rules per se that says that 'emergencies negate' anything.


Only in America...

Why would someone with an amateur license and a fine radio want to talk to
kids with walkie (frs) talkies in the first place??

"Neill Burkett" wrote in message
...
besides the radio shack htx 420 / are there any other radios, preferably
dual band tranceiver that can transmit on the FRS channels as well

Why would someone with an amateur license and a fine radio want to talk to
kids with walkie (frs) talkies in the first place??

"Neill Burkett" wrote in message
...
besides the radio shack htx 420 / are there any other radios, preferably
dual band tranceiver that can transmit on the FRS channels as well

"Dave Bushong" wrote in message
.. .
Emergencies negate prohibiting regulations.


Actually, that's not automatically true. A ham was charged with
transmitting on a police frequency, using his modified ham HT, because
that was the only way he felt that he could get help for a life-
threatening injury (and it was probably an accurate assessment). But
the police said that since he had modified the radio *before* the
incident, that is when the act illegal was planned, and there is nothing

Uh, if you continue to post this 'partial' reference, please consider
posting the WHOLE story.

The individual was in deed arrested and charged. But according to
NUMEROUS other accounts, the individual had other means to make
contact other than using his HAM radio on sheriffs frequencies. Also,
the 'incident' that this involved was NOT (allegedly) a life threatening
situation. And also according to the stories posted about this incident,
the individual had a HISTORY of doing this or similar things in the area.

My impression, and my opinion, was the guy was a little weasel and
the legal authorities just plain got fed up with the little twit and nailed
him.

If you have other facts to post about this, I'm sure people here would
love to hear facts. But in the absence of verifiable facts, I think you
chose a very poor example.

Mike

"Dave Bushong" wrote in message
.. .
Emergencies negate prohibiting regulations.


Actually, that's not automatically true. A ham was charged with
transmitting on a police frequency, using his modified ham HT, because
that was the only way he felt that he could get help for a life-
threatening injury (and it was probably an accurate assessment). But
the police said that since he had modified the radio *before* the
incident, that is when the act illegal was planned, and there is nothing

Uh, if you continue to post this 'partial' reference, please consider
posting the WHOLE story.

The individual was in deed arrested and charged. But according to
NUMEROUS other accounts, the individual had other means to make
contact other than using his HAM radio on sheriffs frequencies. Also,
the 'incident' that this involved was NOT (allegedly) a life threatening
situation. And also according to the stories posted about this incident,
the individual had a HISTORY of doing this or similar things in the area.

My impression, and my opinion, was the guy was a little weasel and
the legal authorities just plain got fed up with the little twit and nailed
him.

If you have other facts to post about this, I'm sure people here would
love to hear facts. But in the absence of verifiable facts, I think you
chose a very poor example.

Mike

Paul Jordan wrote:

Why would someone with an amateur license and a fine radio want to talk to
kids with walkie (frs) talkies in the first place??


Not everyone has or wants a license, so it's easier to carry one radio.

The use of an amateur radio on FRS is not right, but as long as it's
done on the lowest power with a rubber ducky, and you're not an a$$,
you should be OK.

Paul Jordan wrote:

Why would someone with an amateur license and a fine radio want to talk to
kids with walkie (frs) talkies in the first place??


Not everyone has or wants a license, so it's easier to carry one radio.

The use of an amateur radio on FRS is not right, but as long as it's
done on the lowest power with a rubber ducky, and you're not an a$$,
you should be OK.

"Paul Jordan" wrote in message
...
Why would someone with an amateur license and a fine radio want to talk
to
kids with walkie (frs) talkies in the first place??

In my case I go camping with the wife and kids alot.
I found my Alinco mobile rig (when "opened up" via
"the mod" would TX with full power in the FRS & GMRS
band(s). This is handy when I have to leave the campsite
and if I have 2 call the wife from the quikie-mart a
couple miles down the road from the campsite on
her Motorola FRS.

"Paul Jordan" wrote in message
...
Why would someone with an amateur license and a fine radio want to talk
to
kids with walkie (frs) talkies in the first place??

In my case I go camping with the wife and kids alot.
I found my Alinco mobile rig (when "opened up" via
"the mod" would TX with full power in the FRS & GMRS
band(s). This is handy when I have to leave the campsite
and if I have 2 call the wife from the quikie-mart a
couple miles down the road from the campsite on
her Motorola FRS.