On Apr 11, 11:53 am, "Brian O" wrote:

But thats the whole point. Your opinion, and mine, doesnt matter. Its what
the law SAYS that matters.

Opinion again. IMO, it's what people really do that matters.

What if a person had no license to operate a GMRS radio, and he does
not becasue the law prohibits it, but comes upon a situation where if
he does not, lives could be lost. Does he use the radio anyway, or
slavishly adhere to the law? Does his use to save lives make him no
better than a robber? How stubbornly must the law be followed, in
your opinion, to be "right" instead of "wrong"?

I know that using it for general public information is not the same as
saving lives - but your assertions that laws must be slavishly
followed for vague and untenable reasons just doesn't cut the
mustard. IMO.

Totally irrelivant. It doesnt matter how you use it, its still illegal if
youre not following the law by being licensed.

And I say, Big Deal. My otherwise responsible use for valuable
purposes is not harming anybody at all, and is helping many.

The GPs who show up there *with licenses* cannot say as much about
their own transmissions. Luckily, the bands are not crowded at YNP.

Then they should answer to the FCC as the FCC sees fit. You have no room to
talk.

BS. I can say whatever I want about any topic I wish.

What I know. Now that you have publically stated where you are and when you
operate and that you have no license, you are exposing yourself to
retribution from the FCC.

I invite them to prove a single incident based on what I've said
here. For all you know, I am lying through my teeth. Also permitted.

It may be wrong, but its not immoral, or unethical

Well, what in hell does "wrong" mean to you, if not immoral or
unethical?

Here's a definition from Webster hisself:

Wrong: (2) Something wrong, immoral or unethical, esp: principles,
practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law.

"Immoral" and "unethical" are right in there.

therefore you have no moral basis to break that law.

That's what the establishment always says.

If you don't like it, then get off you illegal-operation backside and do something to change it through the system.

For all you know, I am.

BJ

bpnjensen wrote:

On Apr 11, 11:53 am, "Brian O" wrote:

But thats the whole point. Your opinion, and mine, doesnt matter. Its what
the law SAYS that matters.

Opinion again. IMO, it's what people really do that matters.

What if a person had no license to operate a GMRS radio, and he does
not becasue the law prohibits it, but comes upon a situation where if
he does not, lives could be lost. Does he use the radio anyway, or
slavishly adhere to the law? Does his use to save lives make him no
better than a robber? How stubbornly must the law be followed, in
your opinion, to be "right" instead of "wrong"?

Doesn't the law make an exception where lives could be lost? I can't recall the legal term for it.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

On Apr 11, 11:52 am, dxAce wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:
On Apr 11, 11:53 am, "Brian O" wrote:

But thats the whole point. Your opinion, and mine, doesnt matter. Its what
the law SAYS that matters.

Opinion again. IMO, it's what people really do that matters.

What if a person had no license to operate a GMRS radio, and he does
not becasue the law prohibits it, but comes upon a situation where if
he does not, lives could be lost. Does he use the radio anyway, or
slavishly adhere to the law? Does his use to save lives make him no
better than a robber? How stubbornly must the law be followed, in
your opinion, to be "right" instead of "wrong"?

Doesn't the law make an exception where lives could be lost? I can't recall the legal term for it.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

It may. I don't know the full GMRS law or general law on radios. I
was using an extreme example to make a point anyway - if it has holes,
then pick something less extreme.

"bpnjensen" wrote in
oups.com:

It may. I don't know the full GMRS law or general law on radios. I
was using an extreme example to make a point anyway - if it has holes,
then pick something less extreme.



http://www.geocities.com/gmrspage/GMRS_Regulations.html


Crossposted to alt.radio.gmrs, where this thread belongs.

On Apr 11, 11:52 am, dxAce wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:
On Apr 11, 11:53 am, "Brian O" wrote:

But thats the whole point. Your opinion, and mine, doesnt matter. Its what
the law SAYS that matters.

Opinion again. IMO, it's what people really do that matters.

What if a person had no license to operate a GMRS radio, and he does
not becasue the law prohibits it, but comes upon a situation where if
he does not, lives could be lost. Does he use the radio anyway, or
slavishly adhere to the law? Does his use to save lives make him no
better than a robber? How stubbornly must the law be followed, in
your opinion, to be "right" instead of "wrong"?

Doesn't the law make an exception where lives could be lost? I can't recall the legal term for it.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

I rechecked the GMRS rules - if I read it right, the rules provide
that a licensee may permit a person *not normally authorized to
operate the radio* to use it for emergency communications - like your
buddy or someone else not a family member. The GMRS rules do not, as
far as I can tell, say that an unlicensed owner of a radio may use it
for emergency communication. This could be a technicality, and might
be legally overlooked in real life.

It sure is fun pushing Brian O's buttons, though.

BJ

dxAce wrote in
:



bpnjensen wrote:

On Apr 11, 11:53 am, "Brian O" wrote:

But thats the whole point. Your opinion, and mine, doesnt matter.
Its what the law SAYS that matters.

Opinion again. IMO, it's what people really do that matters.

What if a person had no license to operate a GMRS radio, and he does
not becasue the law prohibits it, but comes upon a situation where if
he does not, lives could be lost. Does he use the radio anyway, or
slavishly adhere to the law? Does his use to save lives make him no
better than a robber? How stubbornly must the law be followed, in
your opinion, to be "right" instead of "wrong"?

Doesn't the law make an exception where lives could be lost? I can't
recall the legal term for it.


Yes... BUT... It has to be a situation where you are facing *IMMEDIATE*
death.

Example: Tornado warning.... use radio to warn others... NOT LEGAL


Tornado is destroying your home with you in it...call for
help. LEGAL

Also, be prepared to fight in court. Many cases where folks have
accessed law enforcement frequencies have ended up badly for those who
tried to use this rule.



Crossposted to alt.radio.gmras where this thread belongs.

If it is a matter of life or death,I believe the fcc will let such a
situation slide in case it's someone useing whatever kind of a
radio,license or no license.
cuhulin

"bpnjensen" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 11, 11:53 am, "Brian O" wrote:

But thats the whole point. Your opinion, and mine, doesnt matter. Its
what
the law SAYS that matters.

Opinion again. IMO, it's what people really do that matters.

No, its not opinion, its legal statute.
It doenst matter what people do. What is legal is legal, no matter WHAT
people do.


What if a person had no license to operate a GMRS radio, and he does
not becasue the law prohibits it, but comes upon a situation where if
he does not, lives could be lost. Does he use the radio anyway, or
slavishly adhere to the law? Does his use to save lives make him no
better than a robber? How stubbornly must the law be followed, in
your opinion, to be "right" instead of "wrong"?

You are not aware of the law. There are circumstances where the law does
allow operations in situations where life or property may be lost. That
doesnt cover what you are doing however.


I know that using it for general public information is not the same as
saving lives - but your assertions that laws must be slavishly
followed for vague and untenable reasons just doesn't cut the
mustard. IMO.

Exactly, in your opinion. But again, its what the law SAYS, not what your
opinion is.


Totally irrelivant. It doesnt matter how you use it, its still illegal
if
youre not following the law by being licensed.

And I say, Big Deal. My otherwise responsible use for valuable
purposes is not harming anybody at all, and is helping many.

You dont know its not harming anyone, and that again is irrelivant to the
point of legality.


The GPs who show up there *with licenses* cannot say as much about
their own transmissions. Luckily, the bands are not crowded at YNP.

Then they should answer to the FCC as the FCC sees fit. You have no room
to
talk.

BS. I can say whatever I want about any topic I wish.

No, not really. And you missed the point. Just because they operate poorly
does not excuse your illegality, that is where you dont have room to talk.


What I know. Now that you have publically stated where you are and when
you
operate and that you have no license, you are exposing yourself to
retribution from the FCC.

I invite them to prove a single incident based on what I've said
here. For all you know, I am lying through my teeth. Also permitted.

Not in court its not. Keep it up. You may wind up there.


It may be wrong, but its not immoral, or unethical

Well, what in hell does "wrong" mean to you, if not immoral or
unethical?

Its not unethical or immoral to charge whatever someone wants to charge for
a service. They can charge what they want to. You have the choice to pay
or operate illegally.


Here's a definition from Webster hisself:

Wrong: (2) Something wrong, immoral or unethical, esp: principles,
practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law.

"Immoral" and "unethical" are right in there.

therefore you have no moral basis to break that law.

That's what the establishment always says.

If you don't like it, then get off you illegal-operation backside and do
something to change it through the system.

For all you know, I am.

I doubt it or you wouldn't have time to post in here.
B

"Brian O" ) writes:

Well, what in hell does "wrong" mean to you, if not immoral or
unethical?

Its not unethical or immoral to charge whatever someone wants to charge for
a service. They can charge what they want to. You have the choice to pay
or operate illegally.

Actually, the choice can include "finding alternatives". And that's what
blows his justification up.

He has a ham license, yet that's no good for reasons he's bound to
come up with. He could use FRS walkie talkies, an allocation for people
who need some communication capability but don't want to pay a license
fee, and are willing to share with the masses. He can use CB, that
was intended for this sort of thing, and no longer even has a license.
He can use field telephones, complete with the roll of wire. He
can use semaphore, or blinkers. He can write the message down, and
either pass it on later, or use a messenger to deliver it. Undoubtedly
he has all kinds of reasons why none of them work. The problem is, that
once he starts judging that way, it's easy to say "well somewhere in the
aero band would be perfect, I think I'll use that".

And that completely ignores the issue of the ultimate importance
of all this. Obviously if someone is an emergency situation, then
just about anything goes. But, they'd better be careful that they
actually have properly judged the emergency to warrant the use, because
if they think it's okay to use police freqencies to call for someone
to come and repair a flat tire, they'd likely judge wrong. One alone
may not impact on emergency communicaiton, but once everyone starts
doing it, that ruins the frequency.

Even if there were no alternative communcation methods available,
the justification of breaking the law would depend on how important
this is. "But I want to" isn't justification.

Don't be fooled by his references to "civil disobedience". Because
that's about changing things, and all he's doing is conveniencing
himself.

ANd the joke is, since he claims to have a ham license, is that there
have been cases of people losing their ham licenses because they had
disregard for rules in the other services. THe FCC may decide that
if he shows such bad interpretation of the rules with GMRS, then
he can't be trusted with a ham license.


Michael

On Apr 11, 1:29 pm, (Michael Black) wrote:
"Brian O" ) writes:
Well, what in hell does "wrong" mean to you, if not immoral or
unethical?

Its not unethical or immoral to charge whatever someone wants to charge for
a service. They can charge what they want to. You have the choice to pay
or operate illegally.

Actually, the choice can include "finding alternatives". And that's what
blows his justification up.

He has a ham license, yet that's no good for reasons he's bound to
come up with. He could use FRS walkie talkies, an allocation for people
who need some communication capability but don't want to pay a license
fee, and are willing to share with the masses. He can use CB, that
was intended for this sort of thing, and no longer even has a license.
He can use field telephones, complete with the roll of wire. He
can use semaphore, or blinkers. He can write the message down, and
either pass it on later, or use a messenger to deliver it. Undoubtedly
he has all kinds of reasons why none of them work. The problem is, that
once he starts judging that way, it's easy to say "well somewhere in the
aero band would be perfect, I think I'll use that".

You are right - there are simple straightforward reasons why none of
the alternatives you suggest would work. You are also wrong - I would
never, ever use a service, GMRS included, where the potential for
interference in a potential emergency were more than negligible. In
aero bands, police services or any other essential government radio
service, or the amateur bands, the possibility would *never* occur.
Again, it isn't about what some bureaucrat thinks is right - it is
about what IS right.


And that completely ignores the issue of the ultimate importance
of all this. Obviously if someone is an emergency situation, then
just about anything goes. But, they'd better be careful that they
actually have properly judged the emergency to warrant the use, because
if they think it's okay to use police freqencies to call for someone
to come and repair a flat tire, they'd likely judge wrong. One alone
may not impact on emergency communicaiton, but once everyone starts
doing it, that ruins the frequency.

GMRS has several dozen freqs if you include the subchannels. In
Yellowstone, emergency comms are rarely on anything but official park
radio service equipment, not on GMRS freqs. With the single channel
used by geyser monitors, and the fact that all of the other channels
are wide open and practically unused by anybody in that mountainous
terrain except for occasional kids and parents on an outing (and these
comms are usually goofy if you have a chance to listen), the legal
argument is a very poor match for reality.

In fact, in the geyser basins themselves, it is quite obvious that all
of the unlicensed radio users there would become the de facto
emergency network if a mishap occurred. The NPS would depend on them
to find out where a rescue would need to take place.

Even if there were no alternative communcation methods available,
the justification of breaking the law would depend on how important
this is. "But I want to" isn't justification.

The fact is, I don't want to break the law. I am a far straighter-
shooter than most other people, and I have no arrests for misdemeanors
or felonies anywhere in my 47-yaer-record. A handful of traffic
tickets, mostly mistakes, are my entire retinue. However, I don't
want to be screwed by my government either. This fee is a screwjob.

Don't be fooled by his references to "civil disobedience". Because
that's about changing things, and all he's doing is conveniencing
himself.

Your interpretation from afar. You don't know half the story.

And the joke is, since he claims to have a ham license, is that there
have been cases of people losing their ham licenses because they had
disregard for rules in the other services. THe FCC may decide that
if he shows such bad interpretation of the rules with GMRS, then
he can't be trusted with a ham license.

....and those are the kind of people who will likely use the ham bands
illegally as well.

The joke is, none of what you describe here will ever happen. My
interpretation of the rules is perfect (except for that excessive
fee), and more importantly my *execution* of operations according to
rules is exemplary, as it was on the ham bands and CB when I used
those.

Bruce Jensen