Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:14:03 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote:
I read that when it was initially out and have no recollection of the "out-of-band" transmit aspect. The issue always was focused on amteur rigs that could also recieve (i.e. listen to) police broadcasts from an automobile. See my posting on that. The preemption only covered receive capability. Gotta read the footnotes, too. Don't get me wrong.....I, too, feel that if it is not -used- to transmit, it's no one's business, but until and unless the situation is clarified, it is what it is. If you were to ask me if an automobile proceeding down Main Street needs a rider on a horse to proceed it with a blue lantern, the answer might be "yes" if the old ordinance has never been removed. That doesn't mean that I agree with it, or that the ordinance is not stupid - it means that that's what it still says. Today there are several HF/VHF rigs that can do so. IC-706 has 6m and 2m, several other HF rigs now cover HF plus 6, 2 and 440. In all the cases of harrased hams (harassed by police) in states with laws forbidding listening to police transmissions, the issue was always listening to..not transmitting on, police frequencies. It's time for the Five Gnomes to revisit the situation - as if they know what we are talking about. We all know that ham radio issues are not high on the Totem Pole at the FCC any more. Here in NJ we finally changed the old state law around 1994. My rock-bottom stance is that such statutes should clearly indicate that what is prohibited is radio equipment used in connection with illegal activity - nothing more. That is a legitimate law enforcement objective, and does not involve the law enforcement officers (who are not qualified technicians) in determining if the equipment has been modified or whether it has the capability of transmitting and if so on what frequencies. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Phil Kane" wrote in message et... On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:14:03 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote: I read that when it was initially out and have no recollection of the "out-of-band" transmit aspect. The issue always was focused on amteur rigs that could also recieve (i.e. listen to) police broadcasts from an automobile. See my posting on that. The preemption only covered receive capability. Gotta read the footnotes, too. OK, that being the case, the few actual state laws I know about don't question transmit, but rather only make it illegal to be able to listen ... usually only in a vehicle...except (I think) in either FL or KY. Don't get me wrong.....I, too, feel that if it is not -used- to transmit, it's no one's business, but until and unless the situation is clarified, it is what it is. If you were to ask me if an automobile proceeding down Main Street needs a rider on a horse to proceed it with a blue lantern, the answer might be "yes" if the old ordinance has never been removed. That doesn't mean that I agree with it, or that the ordinance is not stupid - it means that that's what it still says. Today there are several HF/VHF rigs that can do so. IC-706 has 6m and 2m, several other HF rigs now cover HF plus 6, 2 and 440. In all the cases of harrased hams (harassed by police) in states with laws forbidding listening to police transmissions, the issue was always listening to..not transmitting on, police frequencies. It's time for the Five Gnomes to revisit the situation - as if they know what we are talking about. We all know that ham radio issues are not high on the Totem Pole at the FCC any more. Here in NJ we finally changed the old state law around 1994. My rock-bottom stance is that such statutes should clearly indicate that what is prohibited is radio equipment used in connection with illegal activity - nothing more. That is exactly how we changed the NJ law. Today, anyone can have a scanner anywhere in NJ (home, car, etc) and unless they are using the scanner in connection with illegal criminal activity, there's no violation. That is a legitimate law enforcement objective, and does not involve the law enforcement officers (who are not qualified technicians) in determining if the equipment has been modified or whether it has the capability of transmitting and if so on what frequencies. Agreed. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Felon N8WWM has a court ordered shrink | General | |||
N8WWM COURT DOCUMENTS | General | |||
GAY PRIDE WEEK VICTORY | General | |||
War Criminal Bush suspends Military Aid to Countries that Support World Court | General | |||
Gays proud in New York | General |