Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
Jon Link (K4III)
on
February 1, 2003
View comments about this article!
Check out the docket at (www.arrl.org) in the latest news section.
The proposals below I will attempt to argue "pro" or "against." Maybe those with more knowledge than me or background can add a few points I may have overlooked before commenting on the Petition for Rulemaking...
1. "The FCC would require sellers of two-way voice or data equipment to keep on file a buyer's name, address, telephone number and 'any future information when selling a radio (CB, Family Radio Service, Multi-Use Radio Service and General Mobile Radio Service gear) under the current FCC rules.' Information collected would remain private, available only to the FCC or law enforcement. Reich said in his petition that, under his proposal, any retail vendor would be able to ask local police to investigate if the retailer suspected that the radios were not going to be used in compliance with the law."
AGAINST: Obviously, retailers will force the additional costs of documentation and maintaining records to the customer in sales price, thus and making it more difficult for some to access this hobby and/or other wireless services offered by the FCC.
AGAINST: Who would monitor and enforce the retailers who don't follow this procedure, who does now when they sell gear requiring licensing? I'm sure the retail stores aren't going to monitor the bands and "hunt down" offenders. That isn't their policy and they would probably drop selling amateur and FCC licensed gear altogether!
AGAINST: The last thing I want is a Store employee knocking on my door because he "thinks" my 1/2watt FRS radio is causing interference 20 miles away near his shop or home. Isn't the FCC in charge of license abuses (except for CB which is Local)?
AGAINST: How would records be maintained/updated when a business or someone moves? Who will keep up with people?
AGAINST: What about foreign equipment and/or used equipment, hamfest purchases, flea-market purchases and private transmittals of equipment, amateur or commercial?
AGAINST: What certainty will there be if the information was on hand at the local stores that it would be kept private? We cant' even trust CEO's anymore, none-the-less part-time clerks!
AGAINST: How would a clerk determine and "contact" the FCC that a person may use equipment illegally? Do I smell a bunch of future lawsuits if this were the case?
2. "A separate petition would require 'ownership and license tagging' for gear operating under Parts 5, 15, 18, 74, 80, 90, 95 and 97, including call sign, owner's name and address and any FCC file number."
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by KA7BTV on February 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I don't think that this is feasible at all. Not only for the reasons already cited, but also I for one do not feel that this type of enforcement power should be given to just anyone. Also, how can we be assured that the information which we give is used as stated? I don't believe it for a dang minute. The whole thing seems to me to be just another of those ignorant proposals which some people get paid to think up. If someone from a retail store shows up at my door claiming interference problems, I'm likely to show them a far different type of interference WITH MY FIST!
|
| |
|
Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by W7COM on February 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
2. "A separate petition would require 'ownership and license tagging' for gear operating under Parts 5, 15, 18, 74, 80, 90, 95 and 97, including call sign, owner's name and address and any FCC file number."
====
So now that would include all the 802.11b devices too? All the FRS stuff? All the cheap R/C toy cars? How about cordless phones? Garage doors? X10 remotes? Give me a break! I could maybe see this for devices that actually require a license to operate but trying to get all that consumer crap recorded would be impossible.
I think this guy might just want to move to a county that doesn't have a Bill of Rights or a capitalist foundation. There are so many things wrong with this I can't list them all. How will it be funded? What good is it if there is no central data base? I could go on but I'll let the rest of you have a bite of him :)
-Joe W7COM
|
| |
|
Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by WA4PTZ on February 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is nothing more than another step toward total
government control and can be discussed right along
with "Gun Control". It is undoable ! Just as with
guns....the criminals will have communications but
the honest and righteous will not. This would be a
very huge mistake. If you are so concerned about
the illegal use of communications then do your duty
as a HAM and as an American. Locate, document and
prosecute. Or...are you just too lazy ?
Yea..that's it...just make the government do it.
Isn't that what we pay them for ? NOT!
It will be too late when you find yourself on the
wrong side of this type of law....Open your eyes..
This smells of pre-WWII Germany. Learn your history,
and not the politically biased one, before history
repeats itself right here in the USA.
|
| |
|
Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by K8MRS on February 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
READ COMMENTS FROM WA4PTZ ABOVE - HE IS "DEAD
RIGHT ON".
THE PROGRAM IS GRADUALISM. BOILING THE FROG VERY
SLOWLY.
STILL DON'T GET IT ??
SUGGEST YOU LISTEN WEEK NITES TO:
AMERICAN FREEDOM NEWS 9 - 10 pm Freq. 5.070 Mhz.
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT 6 - 7 pm 3.210 Mhz.
(TIMES ARE E.S.T. - MONDAY - FRIDAY)
|
| |
|
Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by KA1OGM on February 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just because someone has figured out how to successfully petition the FCC for a rulemaking doesn't mean the proposed rulemaking has any merit. This is why it's important for people to file comments in this process.
Jeff
ka1ogm
|
| |
|
Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by KA2LIM on February 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Sounds like the anti-gun community is starting to invade the radio community. "More control of the people." Thomas Jefferson said it best: The government that governs best, governs least...
|
| |
|
RE: Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by AA4PB on February 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Lets take the lead from Microsoft. All radios must connect to the Internet. The first time a user turns it on, it connects to the database server to make sure you are authorized. If you change any major components like an antenna, mike, key, or headset then you have to call the mfg to get a new authorization number (provided you can convince the clerk that you have made the change legally).
Oh, if the radio must be connected to the Internet, why even bother with the RF? We'll just send voice over IP or CW over IP :-)
|
| |
|
RE: Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on February 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Silly, foolish, and totally impossible to implement. (Radios don't cause interference, PEOPLE cause interference.)
I can't believe anyone would be crazy enough to propose this. And I'm sure the FCC won't accept this; it would mean more work for them, also.
|
| |
|
Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on February 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yep its feasible. Retail stores already collect alot of personal information and use it for marketing efforts. But keeping information for potential government reference and susequent enforcement is quite another matter. Retail establishments will want to avoid this can of worms. I read the petition and don't quite understand why local law enforcement would want this information when clearly this issue is in FCC territory. Also, the petition is worded oddly and comes off looking unprofessional. The FCC will give it due process and then it will be gone.
Merrill
|
| |
|
Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by W8FAX on February 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Some more stuff from Kalifornia. We should try to uphold the laws we have, and not be constantly making more laws to patch up the one's that we don't/can't enforce. We have ENUFF big brother crap now.......thanks but I'll pass........AL/W8FAX
|
| |
|
Do something!
|
|
|
by K4IA on February 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't think this is the answer. But, something needs to be done.
Here's a real-life scenario: I am in my local hamstore and an obvious non-citizen gets out of a limo, pays cash to buy 10 HF radios and then asks if the "watts" are built into them. Obviously the guy is not a ham and has no intention of using the 10 radios for hamming. The salesman can't do a thing about it except sell him the radios. No one knows where he came from or where they went or what they are going to be used for. Made me nervous. How about you?
|
| |
|
Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by KMA001 on February 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Heres one for it. Ex-Michigan militia member that was blackballed? He posted to rec.radio.cbA0The idea below I think in not a bad one. It seems that it is gaining favor. The days where a pirate CBer can buy a new Ham HF rig, and mod it for freeband operation, looks like it will get curtailed by the RM below. Its other aim could be against drug dealers, using two-way radios, to help conduct their business.Lelnad C. ScottKC8LDO
|
| |
|
Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by NN6EE on February 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It would never work!!!
Besides, Riley does'nt even clean up our bands now that are being quickly over-run by "Radio-Illegals"! Listen to either 15/12 or 10m! Where's his "Cleanup Campaign"?
|
| |
|
Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by RAD1OMAN on February 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I assume that the radio seller will need to keep the new FCC Form 4473 in his possession until the seller quits business, then the FCC Form 4473 is then forwarded to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Radio.
The dealer must also log in, all new arrivals, in a permamently bound log book, and log out all sales, except expendable items, such as coax connectors. The log must keep the purchasers name, address, and state issued ID number as well as the make, model and serial number of the transceiver.
Then again, the radio will be only kept at the club station when not in use, an a permit may be required to transport to a new club station.
Yep, sounds like a plan to me.
|
| |
|
Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by NH7S on February 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I believe it is feasible for a retail establishment to keep track of information that customers provide. What I don't understand is why a customer who intends illegal use would provide the correct information.
So rather then ask for the customer for his identification, the sales person should just ask: "Are you going to use this for illegal activities?" If the customer answers affirmative, then sales person can now call law enforcement. If the customer doesn’t intend illegal use, then there’s no need to keep a record.
If this doesn't seem ludicrous, then why stop at radios? All sales for any item/product should be conducted this way as any item can be misused. Even a sheet of paper can cut and be used as a torture device.
The way to implement this draconian/”big brother” monitoring system is to ban all cash or barter transactions. Everything must be purchased with either credit/debit cards or a national debit/id card.
The national debit/id card could even be implanted in one's hand or forehead.
I hope a lot of people will see that other people who posted warnings that this could be prelude to a totalitarian system are justified in their opinions.
Cal.
|
| |
|
RE: Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by K8UPA on February 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with NN6EE. Amateur operators should be more concerned with the chaos on our bands instead of petitioning the FCC with rediculous requests that will do nothing more than deter them from enforcing, (if you want to call one person being prosecuted, enforcement), laws already on the books.
73
|
| |
|
RE: Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by KV4BL on February 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I fully appreciate the comments of the many hams who have made the rather accurate comparison of this proposed lunacy and the current excessive "gun control" laws in this country. This proposal would treat radio afficianados to the same harassment that gun owners and buyers have had to endure for decades. Do the gun laws work? Well, lets see; places like NY City, DC, LA, etc, etc, have VERY restrictive gun laws and they seem to always be in the news regarding their abundance of violent crime. Then we have, at the other end of the spectrum, Vermont, where any law abiding citizen may carry a concealed handgun without having to have a permit or other governmental permission to excercise his or her Second Amendment rights. When was the last time you heard about Vermont being a bastion of crime? Oh, you never did?!?!?...Wow! Me neither! I wonder if there's a lesson in this somewhere. Getting back closer to the main topic, we don't need laws that harass law abiding people (in this case, persons who have use for radio equipment) based on the fact that a few people mis-use said equipment and therefore presumes that ALL users of this equipment are potential criminals in need of close monitoring and scrutiny. This will only serve to make such illegal operation of radio equipment "cool" and add the appeal that all forbidden fruit has. As another example, look at Prohibition and how succesful it was in curbing alcoholism......and we all know how much it hurt the cause of bootlegging and organized crime.....right? I remember my late grandfather used to often quote (I believe) an ancient philosopher who said something to the effect of, "The more laws, the less justice". Truer words were never spoken. 73, Ray KV4BL
|
| |
|
RE: Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by N9XK on February 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would encourage everyone to file comments in opposition to this nonsense. I myself plan to file comments as soon as I formulate a well written OPPOSITION. Problem is, everytime I read this petition full of its inane babblings I feel like I've lost some I.Q. points.
For everyone's benefit here is the link where you can upload your comments, best way is to compose it in Word format and then browse for the file. Also the FCC's ECFS system appears to be case sensitive, make sure you type RM-10641 using capital letters and the dash as shown.
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
|
| |
|
RE: Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by KL7IPV on February 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The LAST thing we, or anyone else needs: MORE government intervention or records keeping on us. This is a BAD idea who's time I hope never comes. Our country's founding fathers just have to be turning over in their graves and wondering where we went wrong.
73
Frank
KL7IPV
|
| |
|
RE: Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by KD7KOY on February 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't like to get into "political discussions" but reading this I have to comment.
Amercia was built on freedom. I see alot of our freedoms being comprimised away in the name of "security".
I'm seeing this more and more from gun control, to a call for national ID's to this ludicrous idea.
Frankly, it's starting to concern me. I don't like where it's going...where does it end?
Another question is. Who are these people who attempt to do these things and why?..they want to feel safe?..they think it is doing "good"? Or is it underneath control?
Why would anyone want to place an additional burden on anyone..including themselves? Don't we have enough laws as it is?
Unless they changed the national borders while I was asleep, this is still the United States.
|
| |
|
RE: Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by ND8I on February 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I would encourage everyone to file comments in opposition to this nonsense. ...
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi "
N9XK I couldn't agree more! You are on the money.
I just finished filing a comment with the FCC using
your url (it was simple) and would encourage all
other hams to do the same.
The FCC is where this nonsense would be implemented.
The FCC is where it must be stopped.
- Bruce/ND8I
|
| |
|
Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by W6DPS on February 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
At first I thought this was a joke, to stir up the gun control debate.
Talk about an unfunded mandate! Imagine the paperwork generated for Walmart, Kmart, Target, etc. You would kill entire forests to provide the pulp...
How about if the retailer thinks the transmitter will be used illegally, they decline the sale?
I will definately be commenting.
My 2 cents worth, refunds available on request.
Dave, W6DPS
|
| |
|
RE: Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by N8EMR on February 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am supprsied he didnt wait till april 1 to submit this. Its a joke of a proposal. The big retailers are not going to be interested in keep track of people. I fail to see how having this information could every be used by law enforcement for anything useful. It also doesnt cover used or person to person sales so there are many ways around it.
If kmark and wall mart cant keep kids from getting R rated video and games what makes they think they are going to be concerned about some $20 license free wireless radio.
|
| |
|
Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by WA6LBU on February 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I guess I will apply the Rational Man Concept and ask simply...Why would this be necessary!
|
| |
|
RE: Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by N9XK on February 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Check this out,
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi
Type Dale E. Reich in box #5 (filed on behalf of)
Obviously this person has a LOT of time on their hands. Every time somebody places opposing comments to his zany petitions he'll submit a counter proposal to the commission explaining how they were probably misinformed, and that so and so filed more than one opposition etc.
I would think this type of energy could be better spent elmering new hams into the hobby rather than lobbying for oppressive laws. Just my 2 cents.
73'
Mark
N9XK
|
| |
|
RE: Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on February 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have filed my comments in objection to the proposal. Have you?
I wonder if Dale wants us to register our used transmitters and Elecraft kits as well?
Steve, KE4MOB
|
| |
|
RE: Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on February 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This is one instance where I would NOT want the fellow Elmering anyone. The amount of damage he could do is enormous. IMHO of course.
|
| |
|
RE: Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by OK1FOU on February 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We had this since 1948 in Czechoslovakia, until we got rid of them in 1989. Russian, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Hungarian and many more thousands of hams still remember this.
Sounds like U.S. want to become the next totalitarian superpower. Nostalgy for long-ago-gone Soviet Union???
|
| |
|
RE: Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by KG4TNP1 on February 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bet this guy never thought that his proposal also includes computers (2 way data). What a mess of paperwork to track evetry two way device sold in the US. I dont trust the clerk to give me correct change much less decide if I am going to use the equipment legaly or not. I'm glad hes a fortune teller.
|
| |
|
RE: Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by ND8I on February 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dale appears to be a prolific writer with poor grammar and the inability to communicate in complete sentences.
His latest FCC post states that he's a retail vendor of used radio equipment. I wonder if his motive for filing this nonsense with the FCC is to impose an onerous paperwork burden on his competition, who will decide that selling radio gear is unprofitable and get our of the market? One way or another, I won't be doing business with him.
- Bruce/ND8I
|
| |
|
Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by N5QXP on February 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh brother. This proposal is in the same vein as the "professional communicator" brainstorm some other guy brought up on QRZ.
Lemme see if I've got this right...You want me to give you all my personal info before I buy a radio.
Then, if you approve of the way I look, act,and grovel at your feet, you'll do me the favor of not turning me in to the FCC or local cops a/k/a Radio and Donut Patrol?
Yeah, right....from my cold dead hands, bud.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
|
| |
|
RE: Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by RS2002 on February 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
[chuckling aloud reading all these posts]
Please remember all of these fine points the next time y'all complain about RadioShack not checking for licenses before selling ham radio gear! Since it's been at least 2 weeks without a "bash RadioShack" post, I figger it's due.... Oh yeah, there hasn't been a "code/no-code" debate in that time either, or a "contest/non-contest" thread either. Wow. A kinder, gentler EHam? :)
|
| |
|
RE: Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by N5QXP on February 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What makes my skin crawl is that some self appointed do gooder can sell a radio (making a nice profit) to suspect that is crook and not suffer any consequences.
(Oh yeah, it depends on what your definition of "is" is)
If a seller has a suspicion about somebody, don't sell them the radio. What happened to common sense? Do you sell matches to a guy holding a bomb and then call the cops because he might be suspicious?
Or is the real motive selling the radio and then picking up the siezed equipment at police auction? Will the dealer then turn around and sell it (again and again) to other poor dumb schmucks that fall for this trap?
And isn't it convenient that the guy that is proposing this just happens to sell used radios?
What a scam...
|
| |
|
Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by WB8NUT on February 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The guy that proposed this BS must have a fascination with Big Brother. What's next, keeping track of what auto parts we buy, "just in case they are used for purposes against the law", etc. This is one of the dumbest things I have seen proposed in years.
|
| |
|
RE: Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by K2WH on February 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'll bet most of the information is available already. Almost everyone (I would imagine), bought or paid for their radios using credit card information.
Just go through the receipt records of major credit card issuers and compare names and addresses to current names and addresses of hams and you already have most of the information you require.
K2WH
|
| |
|
Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by KC9OD on February 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ONLY a freedom-hating fool wants MORE useless gov't rules.MORE bureaucracy, higher prices for rigs, probably the end of private sales and hamfest fleamarkets.This is a rule we don't need. My gosh, hasn't the ineffectiveness of 20,000 laws restricting firearms yet shown people that such laws deter only a few casual violators while the career criminals simply laugh.But peaceful citzens can't arm themselves against the criminals for fear of the laws!
It is ironic that Americans seem to be calling for more of the very same type of gov't that we condemned in the Soviet Ubion and its client states.
|
| |
|
Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by W3DCG on February 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Not feasible. Completely. No realistic means of enforcement.
But I wish I knew the complete history/chain of ownership of all the rigs I've owned, as all of them I acquired used!
|
| |
|
Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by RAD1OMAN on February 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NO ONE has touched on this point, so I will.
Over 28 years ago, I purchased my first Amateur Radio, PRIOR to receiving my Novice call. If the registration of Ham gear or preventing or limiting the sale of Ham gear to nonlicensed person would have prevented me from getting my license. I learned code on that old HW16, and when I was about to upgrade to Technician, I bought a Drake TR-33C. If this becomes law, I see it preventing many from joining the hobby.
|
| |
|
Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by N2MWE on February 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Enough already! Rules like this in the radio services are useless. Someone wants to get their hands on an HF radio and start a pirate station, they can visit their local hamfest and pick up a nice boat anchor. You want to interfere with your local police department, it can be done the same way. No, I am not knocking hamfests, I am knocking a proposed rule that will do nothing more than give the government another way to track and keep an eye on the honest citizen. As another person posted, this is akin to the gun control laws...New York has a gun control law, yet we still have illegal guns out there. What's the point???
|
| |
|
RE: Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on February 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm afraid the previous "anonymous" post is correct. We complain and complain, and ask that our radios be sold ONLY to licenses Amateur Radio Operators.
But, we also complain and complain about newly licensed Amateurs who operate poorly, and demand that they "listen, Listen, LISTEN" before they get their ticket so that they will operate properly when they do get on the air.
HOW is a would-be Amateur Radio Operator supposed to listen? Would you expect every potential Amateur Radio Operator to buy a receiver, only to have to then purchase a transceiver after they were licensed?
I think that's unreasonable, and would be prohibitively expensive for many or most new Hams.
This proposal would "punish" the honest people, for the sake of the few law breakers.
|
| |
|
Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by N3NL on February 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It would not generate any improvement in law enforcement. Almost all of this two-way radio equipment is purchased using credit cards. Each credit card transaction has a full audit trail including a signature and address. Any merchant who thinks that a purchaser is doing something illegal is free to call the local police, FBI, or even the new Department of Homeland Security with his report. So there is nothing to be gained by the petitioner’s proposed record-keeping requirement.
|
| |
|
Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by N7MJW on February 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So if somebody violated this I suppose the FCC would fine, or lock the person up, or confiscate equipment, a condition falling under the depriving of "life, liberty or property" in this case liberity and property. This condition requires due process of law. Due process is a legislative body creating a law, a execuitve body enforcing the law, and a judicial body overseeing the prosecution. In this case the executive body is making the law, there is no legesilative body involved. The arguement can be easily be made this is outside the scope of the authority of the FCC and would require legislative action. Its a proposal for abuse of federal power, which in its self is narrowly defined, and generally related to taxable issues and interstate commerce.
Of course the government does this every day, and locks people up, and takes property, because they have the power (not necessarly the authority) to do it.
Hummmm...
|
| |
|
RE: Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on February 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
" Any merchant who thinks that a purchaser is doing
something illegal is free to call the local police, FBI, or even the new Department of Homeland Security with his report."
=====================================================
Are we supposed to rely on "highly trained," minimum wage sales clerks at most electronics stores to make such an assessment? "Holy Jeepers, Batman! That swarthy looking fellow just bought a Walkman Radio! We had better report him..."
Just as troublesome would be a merchant's employee that might have a personal grudge against a customer. "I'll get even! I'll report him to Homeland Security!"
(Would there be legal recourse if the accusation turned out to be false? Would a merchant's suspicion be sufficient for a Federal Search Warrant and being taken into custody? GOD FORBID!)
Very bad idea all around.
|
| |
|
Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by N9TGW on February 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
on the against side: such record keeping would be a direct violation of the right to privacy ( something that the liberal political engine has been eroding for decades)
|
| |
|
Dumb Idea - not feasible
|
|
|
by KF6IIU on March 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dumb idea - not feasible - what can local law enforcement do about enforcing radio laws? Fire and police don't have the technical means to DF interfering communications. Who do they turn to investigate malicious interference cases - LOCAL HAMS!
How would a law enforcement agency be able to correlate a monitored interfering communication with the user's name anyway, without DF-ing the interference?
And the less information the gov't has about me the better, just on general principles.
|
| |
|
Dumb Idea - not feasible
|
|
|
by KF6IIU on March 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dumb idea - not feasible - what can local law enforcement do about enforcing radio laws? Fire and police don't have the technical means to DF interfering communications. Who do they turn to investigate malicious interference cases - LOCAL HAMS!
How would a law enforcement agency be able to correlate a monitored interfering communication with the user's name anyway, without DF-ing the interference?
And the less information the gov't has about me the better, just on general principles.
|
| |
|
Dumb Idea - not feasible
|
|
|
by KF6IIU on March 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dumb idea - not feasible - what can local law enforcement do about enforcing radio laws? Fire and police don't have the technical means to DF interfering communications. Who do they turn to investigate malicious interference cases - LOCAL HAMS!
How would a law enforcement agency be able to correlate a monitored interfering communication with the user's name anyway, without DF-ing the interference?
And the less information the gov't has about me the better, just on general principles.
|
| |
|
Is the RM-10641 Petition Feasible?
|
|
|
by RADIOWEENIE on March 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
RM-10641 is not only patently ridiculous but pathologically hysterical. Is its author a quivering social coward or is he just simply afraid? Or does he just want to leave his mark on something in like manner as adolescent gang-bangers? What problem could the author of RM-10641 possibly hope to solve unless it is to further erode civil liberties by seditious overthrow of the democratic process? This drivel of RM-10641 really DOES smack of the makings of a neo-nazi plot! I say not only to hell with it but also to hell with its author!
|
| |
|
RM-10641 is patently ridiculous!
|
|
|
by RADIOWEENIE on March 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
RM-10641 is unworkable and would pose more problems than it would solve. As far as the author of this RM-10641 drivel is concerned: what has he been smoking?
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other Recent Articles
VK5RJ Still Gracing the Airwaves at Age 101:
rec.radio.amateur.moderated -- 5 Yrs. Old:
Tune-In To The World -- Amateur Radio Gets People Talking:
Student Sends MIT Letter to Space:
Amateur Radio Club Talks to Hams Worldwide on Centennial:
|
