BLIND-HAMS Archives

For blind ham radio operators

BLIND-HAMS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Lou Kline <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
For blind ham radio operators <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 15 Jul 2007 14:08:04 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (76 lines)
No, it is all of those dope deals going down on the local repeater!
--Lou K2LKK



At 10:09 AM 7/15/2007 -0600, you wrote:
>because, of course, everyone knows that terrorists would use a highschool
>ham station to communicate right?
>We haven't yet been subject to crazy laws putting limits on ham radio here
>in Canada.
>The legislative part of the government tends to leave the existing
>legislation alone, and allows case law to form precident to guide that
>legislation.  Industry Canada lets hams do pretty much what they want within
>the existing legislation and law makers don't mess with a good thing.
>We have however had some talk surrounding outlawing the use of sell phones
>in Alberta, in a moving vehicle, but this is sell phones only, and does not
>limit the use of other devices for communication such as two way radios.
>When they make a law such as the one quoted for NJ which is trying to
>universally outlaw the use of devices for written and verbal communication
>for a driver of a vehicle, it is just asking for all sorts of problems such
>as public safety vehicles, civic works vehicles, taxi cabs, and on and on.
>Once they start making exemptions to the law to allow those persons and
>services to use communication devices, it starts to undermine the law and
>creates legal loop holes to allow other things to slip by which were the
>whole reason the law was made in the first place.  Better to leave well
>enough alone, or to make the law much more specific to address the real
>issue and not become lazy in the verbage and make a sweeping reference to
>all devices instead of the ones that are targetted.
>73
>Colin, V A6BKX
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 6:53 AM
>Subject: Re: RADIO LAW: HAMS WIN MOBILE IN MOTION EXEMPTION IN NEW JERSEY
>
>
> > We just got this in Texas.  Another insane law that Ann Richards passed
>several
> > years ago said that no public school could have a ham station on campus
>hence no
> > ham clubs except off of school campuses.  This wasn't observed in a lot of
> > places but that law was recently (a month ago) revoked.  Its long past
>time for
> > that!  I supoose the idea was not to allow terrorist activity by students
>in the
> > schools.
> >
> > Tom
> >  Tom Brennan
> > KD5VIJ, CCC-A/SLP web page
>http://titan.sfasu.edu/~g_brennantg/sonicpage.html
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.5/899 - Release Date: 7/13/2007
>3:41 PM
> >
> >
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.6/902 - Release Date: 7/15/2007 
>2:21 PM

Louis Kim Kline
A.R.S. K2LKK
Home e-mail:  [log in to unmask]
Work e-mail:  [log in to unmask]
Work Telephone:  (585) 697-5753 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2