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