View Single Post
  #18   Report Post  
Old December 18th 08, 12:40 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.cb,rec.radio.scanner
D. Stussy D. Stussy is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Nov 2007
Posts: 50
Default Palmdale California To Pass Anti Ham Radio Law

"radioguy" wrote in message
...
On Dec 17, 3:02 pm, "D. Stussy" wrote:
wrote in message

...





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.


I guess I stand corrected then. They are trying to outlaw ham HTs
also, since they say they can confiscate them.


I am not kidding. Here is a link to the actual proposed ordinance
where you can read it for yourself.
http://www.cityofpalmdale.org/city_h...spl120479c.pdf


Cities, or even States, can NOT regulate or restrict, ham radio.


Agreed. However, Palmdale is shooting itself in the "foot."

For those not aware, Palmdale is adjacent to the San Andreas Fault.

I
can easily envision any and all amateur operators in the area

REFUSING
to take part in any emergency communication, whether practice or

real,
with regard to any disaster in the area. Palmdale obviously does not
value the operators as a resource.

Note that Palmdale also went after TV and satellite antennas. Again,
there are laws separate from PRB-1 and its state equivalent that

exist
at both the federal and state levels of government that clearly

PERMIT
these antennas. Practically EVERYTHING cited in the proposed statute
is pre-empted at a higher government level. Is the City really that
clueless?- Hide quoted text -


However, notice that they also exempted their own selves from the very
rules that they are trying to impose on ham radio operators.

Also, they claim it's to eliminate interference to other electronics
by ham radio
-----------

They obviously don't understand 47 C.F.R. 15 ("Part 15") which
basically says that unlicensed devices must accept interference from
licensed services. They've got it backwards.