[ARRL-OK] hassled ham

Fri, 29 Aug 2003 19:46:17 -0500

Hi Mark,

I understand and agree with your position completely. What I was=

trying to say and, after re-reading my post, did a fairly poor=
 job of 
it.  Without actually saying it,  I was wondering, had there been=

some kind of encounter with the FCC, maybe some sour gapes were 
behind the stop.  There is no doubt, at the very least,  it was a=

moment of  poor judgment on behalf of the deputy.  I know there=
 are 
times when a little jealousy has developed involving=
 communications 
between hams and locals. This I have learned from over 25 years=
 as a 
Ham and 30 years in local, county and state gov., much of which=
 was 
in public service.  

Education is an excellent approach and John would be my choice to=

make a visit to the area. Also, reminders that agencies like=
 Oklahoma 
Dept. of Public Safety, FEMA and NWS endorse the efforts of Ham=
 Radio 
might not hurt.  Scanners and our freedom to listen to many 
frequencies has always been a bit of a problem with some law 
enforcement agencies and personnel.  That is why education and a=

helpful hand, on our part, is so important.

Hope this makes my thoughts a little clearer and sorry for=
 muddying 
the waters.  Oh and John,  welcome to the never con traversal=
 hobby 
of ham radio. (grin)

Bill,  N5WO

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 17:30:27 -0500, M. Schneider wrote:
>I don't believe there was any question about this ham using the
>radios
>out-of-band in this case.  In the posting he made, he stated he=
 told
>the
>deputy he was licensed by the FCC, in response to the deputy's
>statement
>that the radios were illegal in Wagoner County.  No mention of
>frequencies
>used.
>
>My points are: First, this appears to be an unjustified stop,=
 based
>on the
>presence of extra antennas on the ham's vehicle.  I'm concerned=
 that
>this
>might be an attitude at least condoned by the sheriff in=
 Wagoner
>County.  I
>travel a lot in various areas of Oklahoma, and don't wish to=
 have to
>go
>through the hassles that might occur should  some agency decide=
 to
>make my
>radios an issue, even though they are entirely legal.  Second,=
 I'm
>disturbed
>that this deputy apparently has so little knowledge of state=
 laws
>regarding
>radios in the vehicle, never mind the federal preemption in=
 regards
>to
>amateur radio.  Unless Wagoner County has passed an anti-scanner=
 law
>(possible, but I've been unable to find one), there is no basis=
 in
>state law
>as I have read it for the deputy's statement.
>
>As Lloyd Colston has pointed out, we haven't heard the deputy's=
 side
>of the
>story.  Considering that, I'd still like to see somebody from=
 the
>ARRL,
>possibly our new SM (Hi John!), look into this and find out what=
 is
>going on
>in Wagoner County.  Possibly some education is needed.
>
>Mark Schneider - K5MAR
>Asst. EC, Payne County, OK ARES
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bill Wyatt" <[email protected]>
>To: <[email protected]>
>Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 4:30 PM
>Subject: Re: [ARRL-OK] hassled ham
>
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>Not wanting to speak out of school but, if my memory serves me
>>correctly.  Didn't the FCC get involved in a deal with local=
 and
>>county gov. using Ham radios, not type accepted for use outside=
 the
>>ham bands in that area of Oklahoma.  Seems I remember this as=
 we
>>have
>>had the same, on going, problem in Northwest Oklahoma.
>>
>>So, if this is correct, the deputy was speaking correctly, from=
 his
>>position.  Ham radios are illegal in the public service bands.
>>Even
>>for hams.
>>
>>Have a good weekend,
>>
>>Bill, N5WO
>
>______________________________________________________
>___________________ Information __________________________
>ARRL Oklahoma Section Manager - John Thomason, WB5SYT 
[email protected]
>Oklahoma Section Web page=
 http://members.aol.com/wb5syt/index.html
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>
>ARRL-OK mailing list
>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arrl-ok
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
>Post: mailto:[email protected]