Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] 12-14-2008 update on Palmdale ham radio ban

To: Kelly Johnson <n6kj.kelly@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 12-14-2008 update on Palmdale ham radio ban
From: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:48:21 -0500
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
Amen, Bruddah....

Besides, no one is "reasonable" in California!   In law school,
our Civil Procedure professor told us to disregard all the text book
cases that were decided in California - he said they were always wrong!

Seriously...  that's a true story!

  (i.e., not that CA cases are really always wrong... but our
         prof really did say that to us... and meant it concerning
          our final exam.)


================  Anon.  - K8JHR  ==================

Kelly Johnson wrote:
> It's just not that simple.  PRB-1 was written in a way that leaves
> lots of things to interpretation.  The root of the problem is the term
> "reasonable".  "Reasonable" is not an absolute term.  It means
> different things to different people.  Cities can do whatever they
> want until hams are willing to empty their pocketbooks and hire the
> lawyers necessary to fight it.  The ARRL doesn't have the money to go
> fight all of these fights.  The state AG isn't going to do a darn
> thing.


================================================
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>