[Towertalk] Re: HR4720

[Stu Greene]

This reply on Ham Law put it where it is.  There is a full fledged 
discussion of HR4720 on the Ham Law reflector, and those interested in 
joining can e mail
    ham-law-request@altlaw.com
Use "subscribe" on a new line in the text.

>From: "Phil Kane" <k2asp@arrl.net>
>To: "Ham-law Reflector" <ham-law@altlaw.com>
>
>
>  In the discussion of this matter, we've been skirting around one
>  issue that no one has clearly enunciated.  Being that I'm not noted
>  for being timid on this subject let me put in in plain language.
>
>  The real function why we need this legislation is not to ensure
>  emergency communications or public service capability.  That's only
>  the window dressing.
>
>  The function of this legislation - as with PRB-1 before it - is to
>  pull the fangs of the Mini-Mussolinis and Little Hitlers on the condo
>  boards and neighborhood associations who just delight in telling us
>  what we can and can't do as hams.  That sort  of "telling" is the
>  domain of the FCC, not of the condo board. If that's "Defying
>  Authority".so be it.
>
>  The argument that these are "private agreements that we freely
>  made" is specious - a lawyer term for "so much BS".  Remember Henry
>  Ford's statement that he can supply a Model A in any color as long as
>  the color is black?  "Freely made" indeed.  It's take it or leave it.
>  No "freedom" involved.  That's what we learn in first-year Contracts
>  as a Contract of Adhesion which is not looked upon kindly.
>
>  Those of us who are attornies who have had to represent amateur or
>  even commercial radio licensees in these types of battles know
>  exact; what I am talking about.
>
>  We need pre-emption and we need it fast.
>
>  My 2 cents worth.
>
>---
>    73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
>    ARRL Volunteer Counsel
>
>    From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
>    Beaverton (Washington County)  Oregon