Goodbye Tech Nine Videos

[Pappas and Beer]

The IRS is the only agency that scares the heck out of me. Most any agency will sick the IRS on you. They are to be feared. If the FCC relies on the IRS to do their dirty work than we are all toast. I have been trying for years to make friends with the IRS but we are not getting along.

 

[fourstringburn]

(1) It is in your possession or on your premises;

Funny how you can't interpret this line here, If you could then you would see that it negates your whole previous statement about hooking an amplifier at your CB station BUT only using it for the preamp function being legal.

It would be legal to have at your CB station if you held an Amateur license as the rules say. It would be subjective to say having it hooked up to a CB transmitter even though the amplifier never gets turned on except for the preamp would be a stretch being legal.

Even so, All the reason why you guys should get at least a Tech class Amateur license then at least having a amplifier IN YOUR POSSESSION OR ON YOUR PREMISES would be legal. What you do with it after that is your business!

 

[Big Kahuna]

Funny how you can't interpret this line here

It's not a matter of interpreting.

The legal use of the word AND in this particular legal statute is very clear. I tried to explain this in my previous post but I'll give a further explanation.

If a law requiring identification says the following -

Proof of legal status requires display of

1) State issued drivers license; and

2) U.S. Passport

It means that you must display both to satisfy the legal requirement - the drivers license alone is not proof - you must show BOTH to meet the law as written.

In the section we're referring to in Part 95 of the FCC regulations - the use of the word AND is very clear and is used to link both parts (1) and (2) of section (c) thus creating a clause that each part is dependent on the other part for (c) presumption of use to be valid. Part (1) regarding possession is not independent of the other clause.

(c) The FCC will presume you have used a linear or other external RF power amplifier if—

(1) It is in your possession or on your premises; and

(2) There is other evidence that you have operated your CB station with more power than allowed by CB Rule 10, §95.410.

If the law did not include part (2) then you would be correct regarding possession but in this case the inclusion of part (2) with the use of the word AND means that both requirements need to be met for them to "presume" you have a linear and take action under the law.

Therefore possession alone of an linear amplifier (legal or otherwise) is not cause for the FCC to take action against you.

Is a video of you using your amplifier inline with your CB station on YouTube enough to satisfy part 2 of the clause? I doubt it, but that has yet to be tested in court.

Hopefully this helps explain this for everyone - again there seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the legality of possession and it seems that many radio operators like to spread myths in this regard to intimidate others as a "scare tactic" to deter illegal use.

While using an amplifier on the CB bands to exceed the legal power output limit is indeed illegal - simply possessing an amplifier is not.

And now I guess I better put a disclaimer

"The information offered does not constitute solicitation or provision of legal advice. This information should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney licensed or authorized to practice in your jurisdiction. You should always consult a suitably qualified attorney regarding any specific legal problem or FCC matter."

 

[357]

 

[fourstringburn]

It's not a matter of interpreting.

The legal use of the word AND in this particular legal statute is very clear. I tried to explain this in my previous post but I'll give a further explanation.

If a law requiring identification says the following -

Proof of legal status requires display of

1) State issued drivers license; and

2) U.S. Passport

It means that you must display both to satisfy the legal requirement - the drivers license alone is not proof - you must show BOTH to meet the law as written.

In the section we're referring to in Part 95 of the FCC regulations - the use of the word AND is very clear and is used to link both parts (1) and (2) of section (c) thus creating a clause that each part is dependent on the other part for (c) presumption of use to be valid. Part (1) regarding possession is not independent of the other clause.

(c) The FCC will presume you have used a linear or other external RF power amplifier if—

(1) It is in your possession or on your premises; and

(2) There is other evidence that you have operated your CB station with more power than allowed by CB Rule 10, §95.410.

If the law did not include part (2) then you would be correct regarding possession but in this case the inclusion of part (2) with the use of the word AND means that both requirements need to be met for them to "presume" you have a linear and take action under the law.

Therefore possession alone of an linear amplifier (legal or otherwise) is not cause for the FCC to take action against you.

Is a video of you using your amplifier inline with your CB station on YouTube enough to satisfy part 2 of the clause? I doubt it, but that has yet to be tested in court.

Hopefully this helps explain this for everyone - again there seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the legality of possession and it seems that many radio operators like to spread myths in this regard to intimidate others as a "scare tactic" to deter illegal use.

While using an amplifier on the CB bands to exceed the legal power output limit is indeed illegal - simply possessing an amplifier is not.

And now I guess I better put a disclaimer

"The information offered does not constitute solicitation or provision of legal advice. This information should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney licensed or authorized to practice in your jurisdiction. You should always consult a suitably qualified attorney regarding any specific legal problem or FCC matter."

You need to quit while you think your ahead!

Everyone else seems to get, apparently you don't or ever will.

Good day!

 

[Tallman]

The law is clear about possessing linear RF amplifiers if you are not a licensed Amateur radio operator.
Free speech is not free. You must be willing to endure the criticism of your peers and take responsibility for your words or actions.
Even prosecution if you advocate breaking the law.

The only proof they need is signal strength and a proper voice analysis. Once they have that here comes the search warrants. It just takes one angry neighbor to get you on the radar of the FCC.

 

[Tallman]

The IRS is the only agency that scares the heck out of me.

The motto there is, " We got what it takes to take what you got."

 

[Big Kahuna]

The law is clear about possessing linear RF amplifiers if you are not a licensed Amateur radio operator.
Free speech is not free. You must be willing to endure the criticism of your peers and take responsibility for your words or actions.
Even prosecution if you advocate breaking the law.

The only proof they need is signal strength and a proper voice analysis. Once they have that here comes the search warrants. It just takes one angry neighbor to get you on the radar of the FCC.

Exactly - the law on possession is clear - it's not illegal unless you transmit illegally and the possession won't play a part unless they have the proof of that illegal act.

There is plenty of antique radio equipment - such as old military radios that are illegal to use but many people might want to have one just the same as a collector. It's not illegal for a CB operator to own a ham radio even if they don't have a license and the same applies to an other piece of radio equipment including amplifiers.

I'm not warranting the use of amplifiers by CB operators and I make it quite clear that it's illegal for anyone licensed or not to use an amplifier on the CB bands but it is quite legal for anyone to own an amplifier (radio operator or not) as long as they don't use it illegally

That's why the FCC had to add the part (2) in regards to "other evidence" - specifically so that someone who has a amplifier in their possession (such as a antique collector) but has done nothing illegal is at no risk.

Everyone has been feeding this "simple possession is illegal" b.s. for so long - there is a clear distinction between possession and illegal use and the FCC recognizes it enough that they even have to put an AND in their statement in regards to the evidence.

I understand that probably 99% of CBer's who own an amplifier are in fact using it illegally and they need to accept any consequences, but for the 1% who aren't operating illegally simply owning the amplifier isn't illegal.

And yes FourStringBurn - I do get it, that's why I took the time to try to explain why those who assume simple possession is illegal are wrong and why if we look at the law in more detail it's easy to see why they wrote the law the way they did. To curb illegal activity without overstepping their bounds and infringing on the ownership rights of citizens especially those who have committed no crime. It's actually very well written.

This thread is about radio equipment being shown on YouTube - and in that case we learned don't market your non-type accepted home built equipment for sale and you'll be fine.

 

[Yeti Communications Ltd]

i guess he missed this word ..or

(1) It is in your possession or on your premises; and

(2) There is other evidence that you have operated your CB station with more power than allowed by CB Rule 10, §95.410.

sorry BK your interpretation is incorrect ..what its is says is if your are in possession OR its on your premises AND blah blah bah

the first clause is saying if you have it with you (with out appropriate licence I.E procession with out correct ticket)
leading to the second clause...
or if they think you had it and used it in the act of using it on cb radio or using a high power "cb" (10m or ham or whatever)

we have a saying here "procession is 9/10ths of the law"


as i said if you had a gun under your bed with no licence to own/process it and a cop came in and found it ..you are breaking the law whether it has 2 " of dust on it or not and no round in the chamber ..procession of a rf amplifier with no appropriate licence is the same.

you clearly have not been busted for use of a amplifier..my last bust (late 1980,s) they never knew i had it till they saw it on the dresser table (unplugged no radio anywhere near it) and yes i got to hand it in in a sealed evidence bag

now i have a ham ticket no issue (unless caught using it on cb band)...since my neighbours kid is the radio inspector for my island ..well you get the idea

plenty of skip rolling from your way time to fire up the maul and break some laws 4-10

 

[Big Kahuna]

i guess he missed this word ..or

(1) It is in your possession or on your premises; and

(2) There is other evidence that you have operated your CB station with more power than allowed by CB Rule 10, §95.410.

sorry BK your interpretation is incorrect ..what its is says is if your are in possession OR its on your premises AND blah blah bah

the first clause is saying if you have it with you (with out appropriate licence I.E procession with out correct ticket)
leading to the second clause...
or if they think you had it and used it in the act of using it on cb radio or using a high power "cb" (10m or ham or whatever)

Again this isn't an interpretation - the words AND and the word OR are used very carefully in the law to determine if the next clause is independent or linked.

For example here is a use of the word OR used to show that either clause may apply - see the word OR at the end of part (1) -

§ 51.60 Denial and restriction of passports.
(a) The Department may not issue a passport, except a passport for direct return to the United States, in any case in which the Department determines or is informed by competent authority that:

(1) The applicant is in default on a loan received from the United States under 22 U.S.C. 2671(b)(2)(B) for the repatriation of the applicant and, where applicable, the applicant's spouse, minor child(ren), and/or other immediate family members, from a foreign country (see 22 U.S.C. 2671(d)); or

(2) The applicant has been certified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as notified by a state agency under 42 U.S.C. 652(k) to be in arrears of child support in an amount determined by statute.

In the above statement the OR is used to show that either part 1 or part 2 independently would be enough to satisfy the statement - however if they had used the word AND then both part (1) and (2) would have had to occurred.

When discussing a requirement in law and using the word AND linking the two statements you are stating that both parts must occur as part of the requirement.

Sometimes it's easier to understand if you write it as a connected sentence -

In this case the FCC is saying you will be presumed to have used an amplifier if -

You have it in your possession AND there is evidence you have operated with more power than the legal limit.

Again I understand that in virtually 100% of all FCC cases that we would ever see that part (2) would occur (someone complains, FCC investigates) and then part (1) (they inspect and discover the amplifier in possession) however that doesn't change the fact that both parts have to occur for them to assume you have used the amplifier and prosecute for it according to their own laws. If they remove the AND in the statement then yes, simply possessing it would become enough for their assumption of use.

The reason I'm even bothering to give this full explanation is that we were talking about video and the showing of an amplifier in a video and I'm explaining that in the case discussed - owning the amplifier isn't the issue and showing it in a video isn't the issue. In his case the marketing of the non-type accepted equipment is what got him in trouble. But that is covered under another section of the rules, not the area of possession we are discussing here.

I can recall a case a couple of years ago and it involved the use of the word "shall" which one party defined as "must" and another party defined it as "may" in term of inclusion of the next statement. As in all of the following "shall" include -

You might think that "shall" would mean "must" be included....But the supreme Court ruled "shall" = "may" when it appears in statutes

The word "shall" is not recommend for use when writing laws because of the confusion and the word "must" is now used to show mandatory requirements.

Interesting how important wording can be in legal writing.

 

[Pappas and Beer]

Many if not most criminal statutes are subject to interpretation. All lawyers take at least one of those classes. Every bar exam has at least one question about a criminal statute where you have to argue two totally different interpretations at the same time. There are volumes of books on how to interpret the law including contract interpretation.
Certain rules exist such as: the meaning is interpreted against the person who wrote it; or always look to the intent of the statute at the date it was written rather than to its language; or the plain meaning rule such that if a word has more than one meaning look to the most common meaning; or interpret it most favorable to the party most likely to be injured by a bad interpretation. Bottom line is that it is as subjective as it gets. There is no correct interpretation.

 

[fourstringburn]

the first clause is saying if you have it with you (with out appropriate licence I.E procession with out correct ticket)

Other clause's for amps that can TX between 24-144MHz in the U.S. for Amateur license holders. Your country maybe different.

These amplifiers can only be purchased used or,

New old stock manufactured before 1978.

Also an Amateur can modify a new amp like the the Ameritron's that doesn't TX between 24-144 MHz or build one to use on those restricted frequencies that are in place for U.S. made amps to use at his station and TX on all Amateur frequencies within the class of the license held.

That's another point, all those Texas stars and Davemades etc. are illegal even for us to buy new.

The reasons behind that is obvious.

 

[Big Kahuna]

That's another point, all those Texas stars and Davemades etc. are illegal even for us to buy new.

The reasons behind that is obvious.

They don't care if you buy the Texas Star and you can't be prosecuted for buying it, but they sure as heck will go after the seller and prosecute them and their rules are written specifically to attack the illegal sellers.

When I used to run my store I was very careful because those rules for marketing/selling amps is very specific. I never even talked about amps with customers let alone sold any.

But again as a buyer you wouldn't get in trouble. The law is designed to go after and stop the sellers. Much more effective than trying to chase 100 people down, stop the source.

 

[fourstringburn]

They don't care if you buy the Texas Star and you can't be prosecuted for buying it, but they sure as heck will go after the seller and prosecute them and their rules are written specifically to attack the illegal sellers.

When I used to run my store I was very careful because those rules for marketing/selling amps is very specific. I never even talked about amps with customers let alone sold any.

But again as a buyer you wouldn't get in trouble. The law is designed to go after and stop the sellers. Much more effective than trying to chase 100 people down, stop the source.

I think you been smoking too much Maui Waui because you can't understand the rules that are clear.

We hams cannot purchase any NEW U.S. made amps made after 1978 that can TX between 24 and 144 MHz, PERIOD! We can only buy them USED!

That would include Texas stars and all the rest.

A better argument from you would be the age old justification, " it's only illegal if you get caught ".


Buy the way, Don't you have your Amateur license?

 

[Big Kahuna]

I think you been smoking too much Maui Waui because you can't understand the rules that are clear.

We hams cannot purchase any NEW U.S. made amps made after 1978 that can TX between 24 and 144 MHz, PERIOD! We can only buy them USED!

That would include Texas stars and all the rest.

A better argument from you would be the age old justification, " it's only illegal if you get caught ".


Buy the way, Don't you have your Amateur license?

if you're referring to 97.315 and certification, that section is aimed at manufacture and import, for use at an amateur station, it doesn't specify any rules regarding ownership.

The FCC is specifically referring to rules for manufacture, impor, and use.

Not illegal to buy or own as an individual but illegal as a business to manufacture, import, or sell.

But of course why own a Texas Star if you don't intend to use most will be used illegally. Although I met a guy once who had one who said he used it to cure Cancer using a special device he created. Real interesting fellow. Not a radio operator...Just a weirdo who owned a Texas Star amp