HR2.0 - YouTubers Bunch Discusses ARRL Membership Benefits and Fallbacks

The ARRL has nothing to do with it.

Facts are NOT harrassment.

You make astounding assertions without any presentation of facts.

IF there is a CONVICTED FELON CHILD molester, and you can document this, then FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE FCC. It is very LIKELY they will REVOKE HIS LICENSE in the public interest.

The ARRL has --nothing--to do with ANY of this.

Otherwise I see hyperbolic accusations with NO BASIS for concern.

'Fact it up' or keep quiet.

 

I won't be joining ARRL.

 

ARES is an ARRL organization....the ARRL is directly responsible for EVERYTHING within their organizations. If you don't understand the reality of that, then your intelligence is seriously in question.

As for telling me to post names...I suggest you look use some of the vast imaginary " intellect" of yours and look into the legal reason for not doing that.

Now...shhhh. Let the grown-ups talk. I'm done responding you your obvious stupidity.

 

Let's get this straight--you tried to intimidate me with sarcasm on being "smart", and now you try a second front by saying I am "stupid". Of course this makes total sense to everyone here. We are SO...WITH..YOU.

NOT.

Your failure to STATE FACTS, and divert by attacking me, is an insult to the readers of this thread.

For example, you refuse to PRESENT THE IDENTITY of this alleged convicted felon ( for 'child molestation') because you fear some exposure for "harrassment" by said alleged convicted felon. Friends, if that alleged person wanted to pursue, IMO he or she can easily make the case you are-- already-- IN-DEEP! All public, here.

Next, although YOU refuse to pursue any course of action because of potential "harrassment" against the convicted felon, you make no bones about insisting that it is the ARRL's RESPONSIBILITY to do the very same.

Why should the ARRL's alleged exposure be less than yours? Why should the ARRL make decisions that are not within its purview?

If this person is a convicted felon, then it is ONLY the FCC's responsibility to determine if this alleged person has the moral ability to continue to have Part 97 privileges--and use them; on a repeater, ARES, or otherwise.

YOUR REFUSAL to act on this knowledge--by making it public, and notifying the FCC-- IMO, lays the BURDEN OF (POTENTIAL FUTURE) ENABLEMENT upon you.

Yes, you.

Its your FAULT for not ACTING to protect others, IMO.

SO act or shut up.

IMO, IF this person has the background you describe, he should NOT be anywhere near children and certainly should NOT have Part 97 privileges. But that's an OPINION. I am not evincing any FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE on this. Why? Because you have not PROVIDED IT.

Thanks.

Chip W1YW

 

@KM4KGN

NOTE -> The ARRL is NOT the POLICE! The FCC and others are the police.

See the details from two years ago, Revised FCC Form 605 Will Ask Applicants “the Felony Question”.

I believe if concerns AND documented facts supporting such action, not just hearsay rumors, would be provided to the ARRL, they may assist with or direct how to file a report to the FCC and/or take other actions.

But it's up to someone else with those facts to first SAY SOMETHING to them. Not just wring hands on an internet forum.

 

Or abuse another poster.

No reason for a "minister" to abuse me on this forum-- for stating the obvious, the 'law', the agency, and the protocol for proceeding.

 

Here is the text from the link from 2017:

A revised FCC Form 605 — Quick-Form Application for Authorization in the Ship, Aircraft, Amateur, Restricted and Commercial Operator, and General Mobile Radio Services — going into effect in September will ask all applicants to indicate if they have been convicted of or pled guilty to a felony. The Communications Act obliges the Commission to ask “the felony question,” as it did on the old Form 610 and still does on other applications. This action will correct its omission on Form 605, which has existed for years. Applicants’ responses and explanations will be used to determine eligibility to be a Commission licensee. The FCC told ARRL that it’s still deciding whether to issue a public notice on the change.

“The Commission is revising the basic qualifications section of the form to include a question regarding whether an application has been convicted of a felony in any state or federal court,” the Office of the FCC Secretary explained in a May filing with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which must okay the revision. “Applicants answering YES must provide an explanation regarding the conviction. This item enables the FCC to determine whether an applicant is eligible under sections 310(d) and 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to hold or have ownership interest in a station license.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If, for some reason, the applicant filed form 605 BEFORE this change, the FCC -- at ANY TIME-- can request that the Part 97 licensee FILE AN UPDATED FORM 605.

This means that if a complaint is filed with the FCC, documenting an extant felony conviction for a third party, then the FCC CAN REQUEST AND REQUIRE THE THIRD PARTY APPLICANT -- REFILE-- the Form 605.

That will then turn on the review of the applicant.

Failure to refile (when requested) will lead to license revocation. Answering a refile as 'YES' will start the formal review of the Part 97 licensee's suitability for Part 97 privileges.

OK?

Get your facts; present them as a complaint to the FCC, and in very high likelihood,the FCC will follow through.

NOT an ARRL issue. Ever.

Enough.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Apparently you missed the parts where it has been stated, repeatedly, that the ARRL has been made aware of all of the facts, and refused to take any action.

It's true, they are not the police, but they are still responsible for what goes on within their organization...pure and simple.

 

It is your place to prove that the ARRL was provided the documentation on a convicted felon, and then failed to notify the FCC of said person as a Part 97 licensee.

It is also your place to detail why those who allegedly provided this documentation failed to notify--themselves-- the FCC through a formal complaint.

We have many convicted felons who are hams. Tim Allen KK6OTD is the most well known. The FCC obviously felt that Allen's past, for example, was not harmful to the amateur radio service. Having a felony on your record is cause for review, not automatic removal and censure.

Your assertions continue to be absent of evidence of fact.

The ARRL is NOT responsible for policing the amateur radio service.

 

Have no particular love for ARRL but am constantly amazed at those who go to extraordinary lengths to disparage them.

 

The FCC acts harshly on felonius sex offenders. It would be amazing if they let one through--assuming there is one (no evidence has been presented here for that). Most likely NO ONE EVER TOLD THEM about this alleged ARES ham...because the felony as asserted does not exist.

See below:

http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-revers...onvicted-sex-offender-s-amateur-radio-license


BTW, now almost dozen years later (going back before 2009), Titus has not recovered a US ham license.

Note QUOTE--

“In focusing on the impact of XXXX’s misconduct on his qualifications to hold an Amateur Radio license,” the FCC concluded, “we would be remiss in our responsibilities as a licensing authority if we continue to authorize XXXX to hold an Amateur Radio license that could be used to put him in contact with children."

 

Dint miss a thing. Here is a pure and simple rebuttal ...

If the FCC through licensing authorizes someone as a ham the ARRL has no basis to exclude them.

Other restrictions if any to a convicted offenders behaviour are matters of state laws, also outside the responsibility of the ARRL as an organization. Any concerned parties ought to report suspected violations directly to local police.

 

Wanted the all states certificate. Had to join ARRL for $49. Then $25 for the certificate. $75 for a piece of paper to hang on the wall.....

Also, how about offering digital copies of the magazine and charge less for the membership fee?

 

All I will say, is that one persons continual ranting/raving about how great the arrl is, only turns away potential new/renewing arrl memberships.

 

except the By-laws and Articles of Association both specifically address that issue, and state that the arrl has the right to reject membership.

"... In the case of any applicant whose character, reputation or conduct might make him an undesirable member, the Secretary shall refer the application to the Executive Committee ...".

"...Nothing herein contained shall preclude the Board of Directors from expelling a member upon good cause shown and after notice...".