Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+Supporting\s+the\s+Amateur\s+Radio\s+Parity\s+Act\s+of\s+2014\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [VHFcontesting] Supporting the Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014 (score: 1)
Author: Marshall-K5QE <k5qe@k5qe.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 12:07:21 -0500
Hello to all Amateur Radio Operators.....I just called my congressman in support of the "Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014" which is HR 4969. Every radio operator should do the same. Tell them that th
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2014-07/msg00011.html (10,120 bytes)

2. Re: [VHFcontesting] Supporting the Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014 (score: 1)
Author: Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 12:32:42 -0500
I am fortunate to live in a subdivision where the HOA was long ago dissolved. Please note that "these private entities" don't just show up and make rules; they enforce rules that were in the deed cov
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2014-07/msg00012.html (8,375 bytes)

3. Re: [VHFcontesting] Supporting the Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014 (score: 1)
Author: "Mike (KA5CVH) Urich" <mike@ka5cvh.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 13:19:14 -0500
This does not mean that you could suddenly put up a 200ft tower....it just means that reasonable antennas cannot be banned by these private entities. On a side / similar note. The ARRL West Gulf Divi
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2014-07/msg00014.html (8,922 bytes)

4. Re: [VHFcontesting] Supporting the Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014 (score: 1)
Author: beamar via VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 14:27:25 -0400
A very good point. What this would mean is that part of a legally binding agreement is now no longer legal. You cannot write a contract to do something illegal. Is the legislation  retrospective or j
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2014-07/msg00015.html (8,946 bytes)

5. Re: [VHFcontesting] Supporting the Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014 (score: 1)
Author: Bob Burns W9BU <w9bu_lists@rlburns.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 14:50:17 -0400
In our zeal to support this legislation, we must be aware of the fact that we are dealing with private contracts that were legal at the time they were signed. IANAL, but I believe you are correct tha
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2014-07/msg00016.html (9,309 bytes)

6. Re: [VHFcontesting] Supporting the Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014 (score: 1)
Author: David Pruett <k8cc@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 14:54:45 -0400
I'm no lawyer, and while PRB-1 may not be able to repeal a CC&R that is already in place (and to which the owner presumably agreed), it may be able to prevent the imposition of a non-compliant CC&R o
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2014-07/msg00017.html (9,818 bytes)

7. Re: [VHFcontesting] Supporting the Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014 (score: 1)
Author: beamar via VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 15:35:45 -0400
Prohibition in the United States was a nationwide Constitutional ban on the sale, production, importation, and transportation of alcohol. The issue with the Parity act is different. Here, the Federal
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2014-07/msg00018.html (9,569 bytes)

8. Re: [VHFcontesting] Supporting the Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014 (score: 1)
Author: Paul Stoetzer <n8hm@arrl.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 15:39:53 -0400
Congress has always had the power to nullify private contracts. States cannot, local governments cannot, but Congress can. 73, Paul, N8HM _______________________________________________ VHFcontesting
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2014-07/msg00019.html (9,941 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu