The Amateur Radio Parity Act - Could become reality...

So this are the sorts of nit-picking that make lawyers lots of dollars. 2 lawyers on opposite sides of a lawsuit can come up with completely reasonable interpretations that are exactly the opposite of each other.

IMHO that makes this a poorly written law.

subsection (b) specifically says 'In amending its rules as required by subsection (a), the Commission shall—'. One could take that to mean that the additional requirements of subsection (b) only come into play when the restrictions described in subsection (a) exist. Or one can read subsection (b) as a completely parallel set of requirements that are always in play.

And the final issue is that if passed by congress this law doesn't actually create rules, but rather directs the FCC to make the rules, so the real issue is how the FCC lawyers will interpret the requirement.

73
Jon
AF7TS

 

Agreed. The distance between what Charles is saying and what the bill actually says is the difference of a very few words. It would only take a very small change to fix the bill to actually say what he is saying it says. I don't know why ARRL didn't do that, but it doesn't matter. They didn't do the legwork to make the bill clear to everybody, and there's no reason to have a bill that isn't clear to everybody. If they had spent the same amount of effort on writing the bill as they did in all their backtracking and Q&A and press releases, it could have been a fantastic bill that would have generated negligible controversy, and had widespread support among the amateur community.

 

Laws are written in black and white. Ask any lawyer if you're in doubt.

The amateur radio parity act is specifically written and intended ONLY for people with antenna restrictions.

You're trying to suggest the law also applies to people who don't have any antenna restrictions.

The law pertains to.. and it ONLY pertains to... and I quote:

What the law does NOT say:

 

If it is that black and white, you and I should be able to read the same bill and come to the same conclusion. Since we don't, the bill is unnecessarily ambiguous and should be fixed before it is passed. What if FCC reads the bill and comes to the same conclusion that I did? All your comments about how obvious the bill is will be for naught, and you will get a bad outcome. Why take the chance? Fix the bill first, and then pass it in a form where there is no way to misunderstand the intent.

Not at all. That's what the bill actually says in it's current "black and white" terms. If you want it to say something else, get ARRL to fix it.

 

If this is the case, then those words need to be added to the bill. Add the words, "only pertains to" to the bill. Then pass it. That would solve the single biggest problem with the bill. Since the words "only pertains to" are not in the bill, you have to add them every time you reply to someone, and that should tell you something. If you have to add words to the bill that aren't actually there, in order for the bill to say what you want it to say, then the bill has a bug that needs to be fixed before it is passed. FCC isn't going to creatively add the words "only pertains to" when they read the bill. They are going to read the bill as-is.

If you are so convinced that you are correct, then there is no harm in you contacting ARRL and getting them to add the words "only pertains to" to the actual bill text, because in your interpretation, that will change nothing about the bill. If I am right, and the bill doesn't mean what you say when you add the words "only pertains to," the bill has a bug and needs to be fixed before passage, so that the FCC doesn't add bad rules.

 

You keep quoting subsection (a) of section 3.

Please substantiate your claim that subsection (b) does not separately apply. I see 2 subsections, both independent parts of the requirements. So far all I see is your repeating the interpretation that you _want_ to apply, and repeating subsection (a) every time someone brings up subsection (b).

73
Jon
AF7TS

 

There's nothing to fix because the law ONLY applies to....

For the law to apply, a situation must exist meeting the criteria behind door # (1) door # (2) or door # (3)

If you don't have any restrictive covenant that does any of these things indicated in black and white, then the law simply isn't applicable and doesn't apply.


So pick the door # applicable to your situation, because this law is ONLY intended to specifically address those 3 issues noted above and nothing else.

 

The law (in it's entirety) doesn't apply where there are no restrictive covenants. (no existing antenna restrictions)

 

It's funny that you again added the same words to the bill in order to explain that you don't think that law needs to have those words added.

Your situation must be a lot like that of the League. They also can't admit that they made a mistake, even though it was long ago obvious to them (or should have been) that they made a mistake.

So if you can assume that the bill means things that it doesn't say, I can assume that you agree with me, and in both cases, problem solved.

 

You have not demonstrated there is any mistake. You have only demonstrated that you don't understand the law as it's written.

So which one is it going to be... door #1, door #2, or door #3?

Unfortunately, there's no door #4 or door #5 - Sorry.

 

From a legal perspective I see nothing in the bill that requires anyone already having approved antennas in an HOA from having to obtain new approval for those that already exist.

Mountain, meet molehill.

I'm not in an HOA and none of this impacts me at all, but I think the bill is a good idea and may open the door to additional beneficial legislation. It is easier to argue, since this is already law, what we need to do to make the law better is this.

Get "something" passed, first.

 

So now this is "Let's Make a Deal?" It's unfortunate that you insist on lowering a serious discussion on national legislation to mockery through such suggestions.

​

Maybe not to you. If you check the other posts in the thread, you'll see that many others have come to the same conclusion that I have, also on their own. There are professional legal opinions that have been written on this bill, also reaching the same (actually worse) conclusions. You can't or won't read and understand these people's writings, either... so what?

 

That's what these people thought, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

"We need to pass something!"

If you have the ability to pass something, why not pass something that is done right on the first try? Measure twice, cut once.

Of course not, but that's not the issue being "discussed." The problem is with new construction.

 

That is what I want it to say.

But section 3 says
(a) 'enact a new part 97 rule to address a problem;
(b) 'when you enact the new part 97 rule enact these additional requirements'

Where does it say that subsection (b) does not apply where there are no restrictive covenants?

Subsection (a) clearly applies to restrictive covenants; it requires a rule to limit them
subsection (b) just says that at the same time you follow subsection (a) you have to add some additional requirements.

It does not say explicitly one way or the other _anywhere_ in the bill that the additional requirements get added part 97 as a whole or simply to the new paragraph that subsection (a) requires. subsection (b) just says 'add these additional requirements'.

73
Jon
AF7TS

 

Sorry you don't like my answer but why would there be a law pertaining to and applied to any covenants that don't have any antenna restrictions?

I think that suggestion would constitute a serious mockery of the Amateur Radio Parity Act.

Besides, that would make no sense whatsoever...

So door #1 , door # 2 or door #3 is what the law specifically pertains to and nothing else.

Again, here's what the law pertains to..., and ONLY pertains to... in plain black and white for all to see. (I didn't write or add anything to these words)

In conclusion, for this law to apply in part, or in it's entirety, one of these three conditions must be applicable.