radioguy
2011-02-11 01:30:00 UTC
X-No-Archive: Yes
once again, local state laws haS OVERRULED federal law and stuck. just
like the kentucky ham radio operator case where the kentucky court
overruled federal fcc law and the ruling stuck,
just like several other cases around the country where local laws have
overruled federal law and stuck.
this time, . the california court
ignored the "reasonable accomadation for amaateur radio" the fcc
requires and banned the ham from hf communications by making it
impossible for him to legally do so. even though federal fcc rules/
laws say that an amateur radio operator may operate on ANY amateur
radio freuency the FCC allows within ANY place the FCC has
jurisdiction.jj
all the while the court claimed
it was indeed "reasonalbe accomadation for ham radio" because it
still
allows him to be involved in a part of amateur radio (local VHF and
UHF commuicastions only, despite what the fcc says and despite what
fcc rules/laws say)
http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter?issue=2011-02-10#toc01
once again, local state laws haS OVERRULED federal law and stuck. just
like the kentucky ham radio operator case where the kentucky court
overruled federal fcc law and the ruling stuck,
just like several other cases around the country where local laws have
overruled federal law and stuck.
this time, . the california court
ignored the "reasonable accomadation for amaateur radio" the fcc
requires and banned the ham from hf communications by making it
impossible for him to legally do so. even though federal fcc rules/
laws say that an amateur radio operator may operate on ANY amateur
radio freuency the FCC allows within ANY place the FCC has
jurisdiction.jj
all the while the court claimed
it was indeed "reasonalbe accomadation for ham radio" because it
still
allows him to be involved in a part of amateur radio (local VHF and
UHF commuicastions only, despite what the fcc says and despite what
fcc rules/laws say)
http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter?issue=2011-02-10#toc01