One other point to be made. When a new law is passed, there is a period set aside for rule and regulations to be developed. I believe the agency charged with enforcement is required to take public comment. I believe this is when definitions and parameters are set and when at least some of our concerns can be addressed in an effective way.
JP Pritchard KG3JPP Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 28, 2017, at 4:20 AM, Rick Hiller -- W5RH via BVARC <[email protected]> > wrote: > > From W5RH > > Question(s) 1 ......Would not this same law make it a federal offense if the > HOA does NOT provide "resonable written rules" or does not "constitute > (establish) the minimum practicible restrition". Wouldn't they be in > violation of federal law if they continue to "preclude amateur radio on its > face or as applied" ? (See constitutional law definition.) Would they not > be in violation if they fail to permit licensee to "install and maintain an > effective outdoor antenna on property under the exclusive use or control of > the licensee"? > > There are statutes in this law that require the HOA to do certain things > under the law. If they don't do these things, would this not make them in > vilolation of federal law? > > Question 2.......why have we not heard from the legal minds within BVARC or > TDXS or even ARRL? I know we have lawyers within each of the clubs. ARRL > has a lawyer who stated that it is a good law and would be willing to have a > phone conversation with ITT (I think). Did this ever happen? BVARC members > have voiced opposition (me too) to the ARRL BOD members, etc. and have yet to > receive any kind of response in return. These BOD folks are hams just like > us, they belong to the same organization and they are volunteers, yes, but > their division constituants deserve at least some type of "thanks for your > comment" response. Even better would be a knowledgeable reply to our > concerns. Has anyone received such? > > I have read Pete's expose and do not disagree, but then I read thru HR 555 > and, using the Google'd laymen's terminology translations for the legal > verbiage, tried to apply some untainted logic. See Question(s) 1 above. > > Yes, I agree that existing (and future) antennas would be in violation of > this law if not approved by the HOA authority, but I also see that the HOA is > under certain requirements of this law to provide their > constituant/member/the Ham certain specific allowances. > > 73...Rick > > Rick Hiller > The Radio Hotel -- W5RH > > > >> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 6:30 PM, John Chauvin via BVARC <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> There is some discussion that the current Amateur Radio Parity Act is not >> the same absurd legislation as the one that missed passage by 1 senate vote >> last year. THAT IS NOT SO. IT IS THE SAME LEGISLATION! It is indeed the >> REVISED version from May 2016; The original, which wasn't as absurd, was >> dated March 4, 2015. To see this for yourself, go to the Congress website >> at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/555/text?r=44 >> The ARRL website also cites that it is the same that almost passed last year. >> >> It keeps the infamous requirement cited in Sec. 3, b (1) that immediately >> makes it a federal crime for anyone that has a stealth, visible or any, >> antenna already erected (or erects such antenna) that hasn't been approved >> by the HOA. Count the people in TDXS and BVARC that you know that have >> this. This includes J-Poles, 10M wire dipoles or any other such minuscule >> antennas whether or not visible from the street. >> >> I won't even begin to touch on the other 11 points that Pete cited in his >> October 2016 BVARC Newsletter article, Page 3 available for viewing on >> BVARC.org That too speaks for itself. >> >> BVARC and TDXS should form Antenna tear-down parties once the law passes and >> Part 97 is changed. >> >> John, K5IZO >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BVARC mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org >> > > _______________________________________________ > BVARC mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org
_______________________________________________ BVARC mailing list [email protected] http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org
