|
if federal law supercedes state law, then how are anti-scanner lawslegal???
If Federal law truly supercedes state law as hams claim they do, then
how are local state laws prohibiting using scanners to monitor the police legal??? The federal ECPA law clearly says that monitoring police transmissions is specifically allowed. From anywhere in the U.S. And "anywhere" would inclide from a vehicle. And if I recall correctly, the ECPA even goes so far as to say that monitoring of police may not be prohibited. |
if federal law supercedes state law, then how are anti-scanner laws legal???
"radioguy" wrote in message ... If Federal law truly supercedes state law as hams claim they do, then how are local state laws prohibiting using scanners to monitor the police legal??? The federal ECPA law clearly says that monitoring police transmissions is specifically allowed. From anywhere in the U.S. And "anywhere" would inclide from a vehicle. And if I recall correctly, the ECPA even goes so far as to say that monitoring of police may not be prohibited. Just my .2 worth, as a truck driver we always go by the most stringent law be it the state,fed, or local, just to be on the safe side. |
if federal law supercedes state law, then how are anti-scannerlaws legal???
radioguy wrote:
If Federal law truly supercedes state law as hams claim they do, then how are local state laws prohibiting using scanners to monitor the police legal??? The federal ECPA law clearly says that monitoring police transmissions is specifically allowed. From anywhere in the U.S. And "anywhere" would inclide from a vehicle. And if I recall correctly, the ECPA even goes so far as to say that monitoring of police may not be prohibited. Yes, I would think it would be quite illegal. Preventing the people from know what there public servants are up to, and if they are doing their job or not would be purely criminal! It would fly in the face of logic ... I mean, if they wish to deny me access to know what is going on, let those they do let listen pay their wages! Problem is, there may be enough idiots to over-ride common sense and logic. Regards, JS |
if federal law supercedes state law, then how are anti-scannerlaws legal???
okay. After posting, I just tiik a look at the federal ecpa law again.
And IF the hams are correct that federal law ALWAYS supercedes anf trumps local and state laws, then it is legal for cbers and other non- hams to have scanners in their vehicles no matter what state and local laws say. The ECPA clearly says it shall not be unlawful to listen to police transmissions (as long as they're unencrypred). And it does not mention any places where you're not allowed to listen to them. In other words, it shall not be unlawful period to listen to police transmissions. Anywhere within the U.S. Unless of course the hams are wrong and state and local laws supercede and trump federal law. Which is it? state and local laws superceding and trumping federal law so non-hams listening to police transmissions in their vehicles is a crime. or federal law superceding and trumping state and local laws so non- hams listening to police transmissions in their vehicles is not a crime. copy of part of the text of the FEDERAL ecpa law: "(g)it shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 this title for Post p. 1860 any person--- "(i)to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public; "(ii) to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted-- "(I) by any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress; "(II)by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public;" There you have it, folks. It shall NOT be unlawful to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted by any governmental,LAW ENFORCEMENT,civil defense,private land mobile, or public communications system INCLUDING POLICE and fire, readily accessible to the general public (meaning not encrypted. If you can hear them on a regular analog scanner, they are definitely unencrypted.) That is federal law. "(III) by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or Interesting because even after the ecpa passed, certain hams around my area told me that it is against the law to listen to ham radio at all on any radio reciever unless you have a ham radio license. "(IV) by any marine or aeronautical communications system; I've listened to the airband. Boring. |
if federal law supercedes state law, then how are anti-scanner laws legal???
In article ,
John Smith wrote: radioguy wrote: If Federal law truly supercedes state law as hams claim they do, then how are local state laws prohibiting using scanners to monitor the police legal??? The federal ECPA law clearly says that monitoring police transmissions is specifically allowed. From anywhere in the U.S. And "anywhere" would inclide from a vehicle. And if I recall correctly, the ECPA even goes so far as to say that monitoring of police may not be prohibited. Yes, I would think it would be quite illegal. Hey Mr. Ignorant, it matters where you live. Preventing the people from know what there public servants are up to, and if they are doing their job or not would be purely criminal! Afraid of getting caught? It would fly in the face of logic ... I mean, if they wish to deny me access to know what is going on, let those they do let listen pay their wages! You know of assumptions not logic. Problem is, there may be enough idiots to over-ride common sense and logic. Are you a case in point? Looks like it. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
if federal law supercedes state law, then how are anti-scanner laws legal???
In article
, radioguy wrote: okay. After posting, I just tiik a look at the federal ecpa law again. And IF the hams are correct that federal law ALWAYS supercedes anf trumps local and state laws, then it is legal for cbers and other non- hams to have scanners in their vehicles no matter what state and local laws say. The ECPA clearly says it shall not be unlawful to listen to police transmissions (as long as they're unencrypred). And it does not mention any places where you're not allowed to listen to them. In other words, it shall not be unlawful period to listen to police transmissions. Anywhere within the U.S. Unless of course the hams are wrong and state and local laws supercede and trump federal law. Which is it? I edited the cross posting. If it was unlawful then selling scanners that cover the police band would be banned. They are not banned and they are not unlawful to use. Some states regulate whether they can be used in a car however. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
if federal law supercedes state law, then how are anti-scannerlaws legal???
On Dec 23, 8:03�pm, radioguy wrote:
okay. After posting, I just tiik a look at the federal ecpa law again. And IF the hams are correct that federal law ALWAYS supercedes anf trumps local and state laws, then it is legal for cbers and other non- hams to have scanners in their vehicles no matter what state and local laws say. The ECPA clearly says it shall not be unlawful to listen to police transmissions (as long as they're unencrypred). And it does not mention any places where you're not allowed to listen to them. In other words, it shall not be unlawful period to listen to police transmissions. Anywhere within the U.S. Unless of course the hams are wrong and state and local laws supercede and trump federal law. Which is it? state and local laws superceding and trumping federal law so non-hams listening to police transmissions in their vehicles is a crime. or federal law superceding and trumping state and local laws so non- hams listening to police transmissions in their vehicles is not a crime. copy of part of the text of the FEDERAL ecpa law: "(g)it shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 this title for Post p. 1860 any person--- "(i)to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public; "(ii) to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted-- "(I) by any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress; "(II)by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public;" There you have it, folks. It shall NOT be unlawful to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted by any governmental,LAW ENFORCEMENT,civil defense,private land mobile, or public communications system INCLUDING POLICE and fire, readily accessible to the general public (meaning not encrypted. If you can hear them on a regular analog scanner, they are definitely unencrypted.) That is federal law. "(III) by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or Interesting because even after the ecpa passed, certain hams around my area told me that it is against the law to listen to ham radio at all on any radio reciever unless you have a ham radio license. "(IV) by any marine or aeronautical communications system; I've listened to the airband. Boring. The problem with your logic chain starts with the assumption that federal law supercedes state laws. In some types of statues dealing with universal rights (freedom to vote, anti-segregation and other types of statues relating to civil rights) it does. When it comes to general regulations, deference is given to state and localities. Conservatives have long trumpeted this division of deference to be the linchpin of shared federalism between the national gov't and states. Study constitutional law, it matters! Mike Louisville, KY |
if federal law supercedes state law, then how are anti-scanner laws legal???
"radioguy" wrote in message ... Irregardless of the ecpa, try to listen in on military tactical comms and let them find out about it.. they tend to call that espionage. Which is why most scanners don't have the tactical freqs. in them... Also, it depends upon your USE of the intercepted comms. There is an enhancement for using a police scanner in furtherance of a crime. |
if federal law supercedes state law, then how are anti-scannerlaws legal???
Telamon wrote:
... Are you a case in point? Looks like it. I was speaking of "others"; You were placed on the idiots' side of the board after I had just read a couple of your posts ... Regards, JS |
if federal law supercedes state law, then how are anti-scannerlaws legal???
Brenda Ann wrote:
... Also, it depends upon your USE of the intercepted comms. There is an enhancement for using a police scanner in furtherance of a crime. In most SDRs, it is only software (firmware in the cheaper ones), it is only a matter of tweaking the source code to receive any freq within range of the circuitry, or reprogramming the PIC in the cheaper ones ... The military should always use deep encryption if they are serious--otherwise, I would suspect you were only receiving transmissions of non-importance, or those broadcast for disinformation purposes ... Regards, JS |
if federal law supercedes state law, then how are anti-scanner laws legal???
In article ,
"Brenda Ann" wrote: "radioguy" wrote in message ... Irregardless of the ecpa, try to listen in on military tactical comms and let them find out about it.. they tend to call that espionage. Which is why most scanners don't have the tactical freqs. in them... Also, it depends upon your USE of the intercepted comms. There is an enhancement for using a police scanner in furtherance of a crime. News group heard edited Right, private knowledge is OK. Telling someone or publishing the communications is another matter. The scanner magazines will publish the frequencies, where and when traffic is heard but not the content. Pickup a copy of Monitoring Times or Popular communications. They have sections on military and police communications not to mention feature stories about the same. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
if federal law supercedes state law, then how are anti-scanner laws legal???
In article ,
John Smith wrote: Telamon wrote: ... Are you a case in point? Looks like it. I was speaking of "others"; You were placed on the idiots' side of the board after I had just read a couple of your posts ... That explains why you are still reading me then as I'm not an idiot. My question for you is are your own posts showing up? If not I have some useful suggestions for you. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
if federal law supercedes state law, then how are anti-scanner laws legal???
In article ,
John Smith wrote: Brenda Ann wrote: ... Also, it depends upon your USE of the intercepted comms. There is an enhancement for using a police scanner in furtherance of a crime. In most SDRs, it is only software (firmware in the cheaper ones), it is only a matter of tweaking the source code to receive any freq within range of the circuitry, or reprogramming the PIC in the cheaper ones ... I kind of like the paragraph above. A SDR ( software defined radio) is only software? Sounds logical doesn't it. If I go buy one and take the lid off I'll just find a CD ROM in there with the software on it right? I like the firmware being something other than software comment too. The military should always use deep encryption if they are serious--otherwise, I would suspect you were only receiving transmissions of non-importance, or those broadcast for disinformation purposes ... That's why all milcom listeners have their boots on. I recommend hip waders for you. No telling what you will get yourself into next. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
if federal law supercedes state law, then how are anti-scanner lawslegal???
Michael "I'm a college professor with a PhD" Bryant wrote: On Dec 23, 8:03�pm, radioguy wrote: okay. After posting, I just tiik a look at the federal ecpa law again. And IF the hams are correct that federal law ALWAYS supercedes anf trumps local and state laws, then it is legal for cbers and other non- hams to have scanners in their vehicles no matter what state and local laws say. The ECPA clearly says it shall not be unlawful to listen to police transmissions (as long as they're unencrypred). And it does not mention any places where you're not allowed to listen to them. In other words, it shall not be unlawful period to listen to police transmissions. Anywhere within the U.S. Unless of course the hams are wrong and state and local laws supercede and trump federal law. Which is it? state and local laws superceding and trumping federal law so non-hams listening to police transmissions in their vehicles is a crime. or federal law superceding and trumping state and local laws so non- hams listening to police transmissions in their vehicles is not a crime. copy of part of the text of the FEDERAL ecpa law: "(g)it shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 this title for Post p. 1860 any person--- "(i)to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public; "(ii) to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted-- "(I) by any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress; "(II)by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public;" There you have it, folks. It shall NOT be unlawful to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted by any governmental,LAW ENFORCEMENT,civil defense,private land mobile, or public communications system INCLUDING POLICE and fire, readily accessible to the general public (meaning not encrypted. If you can hear them on a regular analog scanner, they are definitely unencrypted.) That is federal law. "(III) by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or Interesting because even after the ecpa passed, certain hams around my area told me that it is against the law to listen to ham radio at all on any radio reciever unless you have a ham radio license. "(IV) by any marine or aeronautical communications system; I've listened to the airband. Boring. The problem with your logic chain starts with the assumption that federal law supercedes state laws. In some types of statues dealing with universal rights (freedom to vote, anti-segregation and other types of statues relating to civil rights) it does. When it comes to general regulations, deference is given to state and localities. Conservatives have long trumpeted this division of deference to be the linchpin of shared federalism between the national gov't and states. Study constitutional law, it matters! You should have studied for that PhD, then you wouldn't have had to lie about having one. |
if federal law supercedes state law, then how are anti-scannerlaws legal???
Brenda Ann wrote:
"radioguy" wrote in message ... Irregardless of the ecpa, try to listen in on military tactical comms and let them find out about it.. they tend to call that espionage. Which is why most scanners don't have the tactical freqs. in them... Also, it depends upon your USE of the intercepted comms. There is an enhancement for using a police scanner in furtherance of a crime. You are allowed to hear if you do it alone and don't tell anybody. |
if federal law supercedes state law, then how are anti-scanner laws legal???
In article ,
Dave wrote: Brenda Ann wrote: "radioguy" wrote in message ... Irregardless of the ecpa, try to listen in on military tactical comms and let them find out about it.. they tend to call that espionage. Which is why most scanners don't have the tactical freqs. in them... Also, it depends upon your USE of the intercepted comms. There is an enhancement for using a police scanner in furtherance of a crime. You are allowed to hear if you do it alone and don't tell anybody. NO ONE, has ever been prosecuted for violation of the Secrecy Clause of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to date.... |
if federal law supercedes state law, then how are anti-scanner laws legal???
Always better to hide the installation well and don't pick up any hitch
hikers. Officer Dick Skreshun tells stories about people who lose their livelihood and all their money while bouncing back and forth until their day in court. Then he gets to keep all your seized and abandoned property. |
if federal law supercedes state law, then how are anti-scannerlaws legal???
dxAce wrote:
Study constitutional law, it matters! You should have studied for that PhD, then you wouldn't have had to lie about having one. Yes you should, Ever hear of the commerce clause? There are thousands of Federal laws that trump State laws. The bad part about the issues at hand is the state can confiscate your stuff. and you have to spend thousands to prove they were wrong. |
if federal law supercedes state law, then how are anti-scannerlaws legal???
On Dec 24, 3:38*pm, Raven wrote:
dxAce wrote: Study constitutional law, it matters! You should have studied for that PhD, then you wouldn't have had to lie about having one. Yes you should, Ever hear of the commerce clause? There are thousands of Federal laws that trump State laws. The bad part about the issues at hand is the state can confiscate your stuff. and you have to spend thousands to prove they were wrong. It works both ways there are Federal laws that overule state laws and stae laws that overule federal laws. Kidnapping is a state crime but made federal if you cross a state line with the victim. All federal civil rights laws trump state laws unless the state's is more liberal. I think most federal laws have a clause stating how they relate to state laws. As clear as mud isnt it. The American Civil Liberties Union is the place to contact tfor information on specific laws. I believe they have already been involved in some cases in Virginia. Jimmie Jimmie |
if federal law supercedes state law, then how are anti-scannerlaws legal???
JIMMIE wrote:
... It works both ways there are Federal laws that overule state laws and stae laws that overule federal laws. Kidnapping is a state crime but made federal if you cross a state line with the victim. All federal civil rights laws trump state laws unless the state's is more liberal. I think most federal laws have a clause stating how they relate to state laws. As clear as mud isnt it. The American Civil Liberties Union is the place to contact tfor information on specific laws. I believe they have already been involved in some cases in Virginia. Jimmie Jimmie Yeah, but, I was always going to write the script for a TV story ... Cutting to the quick, a guy has his his wife killed by a very bad man. The guy then figures out who this very bad man is, kills him, buries him in his back yard and gets away scott-free! But then, you can tell, I'd never make it as a writer, and how would anyone make an hour-and-a-half movie out of that single paragraph???? grin Regards, JS |
if federal law supercedes state law, then how are anti-scannerlaws legal???
BBC World Service on 9410 kHz @ 00:40 UTC from Thailand
BBC WS = http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/ S-Meter : S3~S5 with SIO :343 and Fair Audio on 23 DEC 2008 Heard an English News Item : Russia is now starting to see more Islamic Rebellion in the North Caucuses Region beyond Chechnya. http://web.stlawu.edu/govt/NorthCaucuses.jpg NOTE - The BBC-WS in English is on 9410 kHz Daily from 00:00 to 07:00 UTC from various locations. EiBi Text = http://www.eibi.de.vu/ |
BBC World Service on 9410 kHz @ 00:40 UTC from Thailand
BBC World Service on 9410 kHz @ 00:40 UTC from Thailand
BBC WS = http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/ S-Meter : S3~S5 with SIO :343 and Fair Audio on 23 DEC 2008 Heard an English News Item : Russia is now starting to see more Islamic Rebellion in the North Caucuses Region beyond Chechnya. http://web.stlawu.edu/govt/NorthCaucuses.jpg NOTE - The BBC-WS in English is on 9410 kHz Daily from 00:00 to 07:00 UTC from various locations. EiBi Text = http://www.eibi.de.vu/ |
if federal law supercedes state law, then how are anti-scanner laws legal???
"radioguy" wrote in message
... If Federal law truly supercedes state law as hams claim they do, then how are local state laws prohibiting using scanners to monitor the police legal??? They're not. Neither are radar detectors or full range *radio receivers* of any sort (including cell phone coverage). The latter "restriction" bought and paid for by the same telcos that have been illegally tapping your phone lines for the past 8+ years. Of course, if never challenged, they'll take as many of your freedoms as you'll give. The federal ECPA law clearly says that monitoring police transmissions is specifically allowed. Federal law and International Treaty clearly state that monitoring *any* frequency is legal. From anywhere in the U.S. Naturally. And "anywhere" would inclide from a vehicle. Of course. And if I recall correctly, the ECPA even goes so far as to say that monitoring of police may not be prohibited. Does anyone care anymore? |
if federal law supercedes state law, then how are anti-scannerlaws legal???
On Dec 23 2008, 8:55*pm, Mike wrote:
On Dec 23, 8:03 pm, radioguy wrote: okay. After posting, I just tiik a look at the federal ecpa law again. And IF the hams are correct that federal law ALWAYS supercedes anf trumps local and state laws, then it is legal for cbers and other non- hams to have scanners in their vehicles no matter what state and local laws say. The ECPA clearly says it shall not be unlawful to listen to police transmissions (as long as they're unencrypred). And it does not mention any places where you're not allowed to listen to them. In other words, it shall not be unlawful period to listen to police transmissions. Anywhere within the U.S. Unless of course the hams are wrong and state and local laws supercede and trump federal law. Which is it? state and local laws superceding and trumping federal law so non-hams listening to police transmissions in their vehicles is a crime. or federal law superceding and trumping state and local laws so non- hams listening to police transmissions in their vehicles is not a crime. copy of part of the text of the FEDERAL ecpa law: "(g)it shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 this title for Post p. 1860 any person--- "(i)to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public; "(ii) to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted-- "(I) by any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress; "(II)by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public;" There you have it, folks. It shall NOT be unlawful to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted by any governmental,LAW ENFORCEMENT,civil defense,private land mobile, or public communications system INCLUDING POLICE and fire, readily accessible to the general public (meaning not encrypted. If you can hear them on a regular analog scanner, they are definitely unencrypted.) That is federal law. "(III) by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or Interesting because even after the ecpa passed, certain hams around my area told me that it is against the law to listen to ham radio at all on any radio reciever unless you have a ham radio license. "(IV) by any marine or aeronautical communications system; I've listened to the airband. Boring. The problem with your logic chain starts with the assumption that federal law supercedes state laws. In some types of statues dealing with universal rights (freedom to vote, anti-segregation and other types of statues relating to civil rights) it does. When it comes to general regulations, deference is given to state and localities. Conservatives have long trumpeted this division of deference to be the linchpin of shared federalism between the national gov't and states. Study constitutional law, it matters! Mike Louisville, KY- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - While what I learned in school agrees with what you say, 99.99 percent of the hams have said exactly the opposite and have even said that there have been SEVERAL federal court rulings which ruled and upheld the opposite of what you and I were taught. |
if federal law supercedes state law, then how are anti-scannerlaws legal???
|
if federal law supercedes state law, then how are anti-scanner laws legal???
The way Federal Law works is that it sets the minimum guide lines for the
states. If a state or some other agency (i.e. DOT or Public Utility agencies) wants to make it more stringent then its up to the Court of Appeals and Supreme Courts (state and/or federal) to rule if it meets constitutional requirements. In some case if a person is stopped by the the police during the commission of a law violation (read this to mean both criminal and traffic) the scanner can be considered a "criminal tool" to aid in the prevention of apprehension by the authorities. However most most state laws they state within a motor vehicle it is illegal to have a scanner because they fear from loss of revenue do to the scanner cuing the driver as to a radar trap. Face it people can bitch all they want but it will take an explicit constitutional amendment stating the possession of a scanner or other type of communication device in a motor vehicle is a right of the people to give them what want. I am not lawyer but am a former law enforcement officer. Homer "radioguy" wrote in message ... If Federal law truly supercedes state law as hams claim they do, then how are local state laws prohibiting using scanners to monitor the police legal??? The federal ECPA law clearly says that monitoring police transmissions is specifically allowed. From anywhere in the U.S. And "anywhere" would inclide from a vehicle. And if I recall correctly, the ECPA even goes so far as to say that monitoring of police may not be prohibited. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com