On Dec 15, 9:42*pm, N9OGL wrote:
On Dec 15, 6:30*pm, wrote:





In rec.radio.amateur.misc wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:28:10 -0800 (PST), policy-ham
wrote:

Palmdale, "Kalifornia" is attempting to outlaw amateur radio. *The
city of Palmdale has now passed a draft zoning law that proposes an
enforcement unit that could seize amateur radio equipment and restrict
antenna height to one inch above a fixed structure's roof.

It also applies to mobile and portable operation using an HT. They can
even arrest you and take your HT just for walking down the street and
talking on it.

And you all didn't believe me that SOME cities and counties are doing
this.

I didn't even know about the Palmdale California one until reading
this message. So chalk up ANOTHER city making such a rule.
technically no they can't, Congress passed a law in 1983 giving the
FCC full authority of RF energy also in the 1980's the FCC passed
PRB-1 which exempts amateurs to some degree, for example any ordinance
that bans all antenna violates PRB-1. Any ordinance created must use
the lease restrictive means to serve the government interest.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"must use the least restrictive means"

then what about all the previous statements in thse newsgroups that
legally the local authorities are allowed to be more restrictive than
the federal
radio rules, but not legally allowed to be less restrictive than the
federal rules???????

It seems to be if thety're allowed to be MORE restrictive than the
federal rules, then the ban on ham radio in that city by that city is
completely
legal, if the law passed.