ARLB011 Amateur Radio Parity Act Language Inserted in National Defense Authorization Act

Next time, don't let Hank Kimball write your laws.

 

Chip,

First, any non Antenna Covenant CA must be a legally an incorporated Non Profit to appear in court, specifically, it must listed their duties or they are ultra vires (beyond their powers) to enforce anything not in their instrument of organization.

Does Congress by an Act grant anything on this matter? No, this s not enabling bill passing rather law rather an Act Of Congress directing the FCC to modify their regulations.

Insurance has nothing to with the legal status, most CAs here are for street and sewer purposes and will steer clear of anything not on their “Charter” to avoid entanglements in ultra vires.

 

Droit Civil du Louisiane was written by Justinian comment on by the Treatise du Plainol.

 

Even if that is true, the issue isn't enforcement of the covenant. The issue is the enforcement of Part 97, which is where the ARPA rule will appear. Even if your covenant doesn't say anything about antennas, your neighbor will be able to start an enforcement proceeding against you for not asking him/her/them before installing an antenna in a CA neighborhood -- not under the covenant law, but under Part 97.

 

What does Part 97 say-Nothing it has not been written yet.

 

The thread is about ARPA. Get with the program. We're talking about what will be possible should the law pass and the rule be written as the law instructs.

 

Are you DELIBERATELY missing the point?

The definition of CA incorporates all such associations which incorporate 'and other matters that arise' in their agreements.

HR555 will be imposed upon them.

 

Yes, he is. He's been spending months saying literally anything he can to try to generate support for his pet legislation.

 

If my post offends you so much, why didn't you just stay there?

See if you can follow along:

1. ARPA instructs the FCC to write a rule.
2. The content of the rule is enumerated in the bill (soon to be law).
3. The content requires FCC to require all licensees to obtain approval from their CA before installing an outdoor amateur antenna on property subject to that CA (a term which is defined in the bill).
4. The requirement will be codified as a rule somewhere beneath 47 CFR 97.15, and failure to comply is an act that subjects the license holder to penalties under the law.
5. The requirement stated in point #3 above is nowhere in the bill connected to the content of any CC&R. The presence of a CA is the only qualifying condition that causes the "approval" language to apply.

Therefore, failing to notify your CA before installing an antenna means that you have violated the terms of your license. Penalties for Part 97 violations start in four figures, and go up from there.

Because the bill mandates the language to be used in the rule. It's actually very easy to predict the content of the rule if you read the bill.

 

What a bunch of misinformation.

Unbelievable.

 

^ ^ ^ Opinion, not backed-up with fact, testimony, or logic ^ ^ ^

 

Then use the language (not the headings, the language) of the bill to prove the "misinformation" wrong.

I agree. ARRL really blew it with this bill.

 

Good grief people.

 

When you wear rose-colored glasses, the truth hurts.

 

What truth? LOL..

You mean all the truth about everyone living in an HOA who is going to lose their licences due to Part 97, before the ARPA portion of Part 97 has even been written yet?

ROFLMAO...

Really.. all this " truth" is getting rather ridiculous.