Bill Horne wrote:
wrote:


How could an amateur radio advocacy organization be more effective?
Unlike the NRA, there's no radio-equivalent to the Second Amendment.

IANALB, I was told that the Supreme Court decided a long time ago that
the Second Amendment does _not_ give citizens a right to bear arms
unless they are part of a well-regulated militia. I presume the militia
is the National Guard, but I'd like to hear from the attorneys who read
this group.

73, W1AC


Bill;

The only SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd amendment concerned the possession of
a sawed off shotgun. It is currently considering the Washington DC law
on possession of hand guns by non law enforcement individuals.

Also the Constitution of the United States provides for the militia in
the first part of the text. Look it up....

The term CITIZEN is mentioned four (4) times in the Bill of Rights. In
three cases the liberal interpretations means you and me. The fourth
mention is in the 2nd amendment. Here liberals want it to mean the
government. What is your opinion?

Dave WD9BDZ

Paul W. Schleck " wrote:

The narrative does seem to fall flat when a so-called "compliant and
obsequious lapdog" sues its master in Federal Court and scores at least
a partial win.


That's rather naive. Think: 'good cop, bad cop.' To the general
public, filing a lawsuit is a really big deal. To a government agency,
as much government business is dictated by court decisions as by routine
administrative work. There are a number of actions that a government
agency can take to delay a court case and to run up the expenses of a
plaintiff. It would be very telling if it turned out that the FCC
attempted none of those maneuvers and allowed the case to go right to
court.


Furthermore, there's other significant differences between the ARRL and
the NRA that need to be considered when making suggestions about how to
increase the League's effectiveness.

[...] IRS minutia snipped

So, to be as effective as the NRA in your mind, the ARRL would probably
have to form a 501(c)4 organization, in addition to the existing 501(c)3
organization. The NRA does actually have both, with a 501(c)3 called
the "NRA Foundation" which does charitable work consistent with the
rules for that type of organization, and can benefit from tax-exempt
donations and Federal grants, in exchange for separating off the
lobbying and campaigning activities into the 501(c)4.


I know the 501(c)* series well, having been involved in numerous
non-profit groups and having been the treasurer of several. A non-profit
organization can easily become a "group" of non-profit organizations by
filing some forms and opening some extra checking accounts. The marginal
cost of adding another type of organization is vanishingly small. I've
been there, I've done that and it's not an issue.


The NRA has over 4 million members. Even if the League was able to
enjoy 100% membership among hams in the U.S., that would only be about
650,000. So for similar dues amounts (about $35 annual, $1,000 life),
the NRA is able to raise far more money. Do you feel that the
trade-offs in forming a 501(c)4 organization for lobbying and
campaigning would be worthwhile despite the required increases in
expenses, from loss of tax exemption and access to Federal grants, that
would have to be spread out over a much smaller membership base? Could
there even be a risk to the effectiveness of the League in the eyes of
elected officials if they did form a 501(c)4 organization, and thus
become "yet another" lobbying/campaigning group?


The NRA spends a great deal on advertising and communications. I
would expect a group of hams to be able to keep in touch for much less,
mainly via the Internet (I doubt that an expensive, glossy magazine
would be necessary and the NRA has TWO of them).
The NRA lobbies the Federal government, all fifty state governments
and any municipalities that can or might pass gun-related ordinances. A
ham radio lobby would only need to lobby the Federal government. Only
one office would be needed.
Elected officials cannot pick and choose who will lobby them. They
must deal with whatever groups we the people choose to fund and send to
Washington. "Credibility" comes from votes and money, not from sucking
up to Beltway insiders.

--
Klystron

Klystron wrote:

The NRA spends a great deal on advertising and communications. I
would expect a group of hams to be able to keep in touch for much less,
mainly via the Internet (I doubt that an expensive, glossy magazine
would be necessary and the NRA has TWO of them).
The NRA lobbies the Federal government, all fifty state governments
and any municipalities that can or might pass gun-related ordinances. A
ham radio lobby would only need to lobby the Federal government. Only
one office would be needed.
Elected officials cannot pick and choose who will lobby them. They
must deal with whatever groups we the people choose to fund and send to
Washington. "Credibility" comes from votes and money, not from sucking
up to Beltway insiders.


Then there'll be only little credibility. Even if all of the roughly
700,000 radio amateurs in the U.S. belong to such an organization, that
number--spread over our fifty states and territories--means very few
votes and very little money.

I don't see it your way. The ARRL has nowhere near 700,000 members but
it is very effective in lobbying government. It does so with few votes
and little money to spread about. It wasn't long ago that some folks
outside amateur radio wrote about wishing they were as good at lobbying
as radio amateurs.

The point to all this is that it is quite easy to sit on the sidelines
and snipe at the ARRL and to put forth unsubstantiated charges against
it from behind the cloak of anonymity. It is quite another to put
together an alternative to the ARRL. If you desire to do so, nothing is
stopping you.

Dave K8MN

Phil Kane wrote in
:

On Wed, 7 May 2008 18:37:43 EDT, Bill Powell wrote:

Public notice posted yesterday - proposal to use 430-448 MHz for
remotely-controlled surveillance robot:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...-08-1077A1.pdf

Sigh...

Pikers! Why didn't they apply for 20 kW and REALLY cause
interference?? g It almost sounds like they are using something
"off the shelf" that is being used elsewhere where the ham band ends
at 430 MHz. I've seen this stuff before.

My gut feeling is that with the present "leadership" at the FCC
(despite the fact that several good friends are in the Homeland
Security and Public Safety Bureau and wouldn't support it but for
pressure from above) it will be granted on a secondary priority behind
all the other secondary priority users. I hope that I am wrong and it
is denied.

Another reason to support the ARRL Spectrum Defense Fund.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net



There isn't anywhere that has an upper edge at 430, Phil. There are
countries that only have the middle third of the ham band (430-440) or
lesser portions of that part, but none that have only 420-430. However,
there are many where hams are secondary users.

73 de Alun, N3KIP, G8VUK

PS: Can't stand modded groups to save my life, but the old one has nothing
left in it except obscene ramblings

440 is a shared band already, and this device strikes me as an ideal candidate
for sharing. It would have at worst a sporadic impact on our use, at low power,
and would be a direct contributor to public safety while reducing risk of life
and limb to our firefighters and police. This is one ARRL should support.

73, de Hans, K0HB
Just a boy and his radio

In article ,
KØHB wrote:
440 is a shared band already, and this device strikes me as an ideal candidate
for sharing. It would have at worst a sporadic impact on our use, at
low power,
and would be a direct contributor to public safety while reducing risk of life
and limb to our firefighters and police. This is one ARRL should support.

There is no technical reason that the frequencies should come from the
middle of an already populated amateur band, and I disagree strongly
with your assessment that it would have "at worst a sporadic impact". A
few repeaters over a wide geographic area should have ZERO impact on a
well-designed classified military radar system (designed and built AFTER
the repeaters were on the air), but we all know that wasn't true.

This manufacturer has been using non-certified equipment hoping that
his squatting in the amateur bands will be forgiven by getting a large
number of technically ignorant police departments to cry that they'll
be saving lives -- but not cry why they ought to be using spectrum that
is already used.

Read the waiver. The claim that this will be strictly for emergency use
is disproven by the statements from police departments who want to use
this for warrant service and air-duct inspections.

On Sun, 18 May 2008 23:06:34 EDT, "KØHB"
wrote:

440 is a shared band already, and this device strikes me as an ideal can
didate
for sharing. It would have at worst a sporadic impact on our use, at lo
w power,
and would be a direct contributor to public safety while reducing risk o
f life
and limb to our firefighters and police. This is one ARRL should suppor
t.