New NCVEC 605 form bears serious consequences for those convicted of a felony

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by W2AI, Aug 17, 2017.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: K3QNTad-1
ad: Subscribe
ad: L-rfparts
  1. W2AI

    W2AI Ham Member QRZ Page

    Apparently, the FCC wants a written explanation directly from the licensee/applicant as to why he or she should be granted (or continuation of) a license in light of being convicted of a serious crime. They , the FCC, will make such statement part of the ULS record for public viewing.
     
  2. W2AI

    W2AI Ham Member QRZ Page

    I would guess denial would be made on a case-to-case basis depending upon the circumstances of the crime, sentence and how much time has lapsed since the last criminal conviction.
     
  3. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    That certainly has been the case to-date. I believe the terminology is something to the effect of, "determine whether the applicant possesses the necessary character to continue to be a Commission licensee."
     
  4. K4KYV

    K4KYV Subscriber QRZ Page

    I believe this is a return to a previously existing policy. When I took my exam in 1959 and upgraded in 1963, as I recall, the question was on Form 610. And it may not have been limited to felonies; I believe they wanted to know about any convictions by a court. I recall an old time ham who was taken to court by the Justice Dep't and convicted of federal charges for repeated use of foul language over the air (about the worse things he ever uttered were words like "god damn" and "son-of-a-bitch", expressions you can hear on prime time TV these days that are hardly even considered profanity). The FCC didn't suspend or revoke his ticket, but when renewal time came up a year or two later, he had to answer that question on his application form and explain the conviction. The FCC refused to renew, saying he lacked the "requisite character" to hold an amateur radio licence. He decided not to hire a lawyer and pursue any kind of court challenge. I'm not sure it was a felony if it was nothing more than to cuss over the air; as I recall he was given a $100 fine and a six-month suspended sentence.
     
  5. KB7QPS

    KB7QPS Ham Member QRZ Page

    I'm pretty sure that most felony convictions won't cause someone to be disqualified from a ham license. It's not like ham radio licenses give people special privileges (like access to secure areas, access to classified information, etc). I can think of one particular felony that is an exception, and that is being a sex offender. Sex offenders in our society are not tolerated and I think the FCC would like to deny a ham radio license to a convicted sex offender.
     
    N2RJ likes this.
  6. W4IOA

    W4IOA XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    And not all sex offenders are sexual predators or even pose a danger to the public.
     
  7. KB7QPS

    KB7QPS Ham Member QRZ Page

    I don't think that public perception agrees with the your sentiment. At the moment, sex offenders are the least respected criminals and there are few in positions of power that will defend them. I am not saying this is right or wrong; but this is my observation of society at the moment.o
     
  8. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    About 12y ago, one of my mentor hams told me of a case elsewhere in our state where a ham was allowed to keep his license despite such a conviction. Apparently it is all in the details.
     
  9. WA9SVD

    WA9SVD Ham Member QRZ Page


    Not really. Those felons who have NOT "paid their dues" do not deserve a license. That's all; a felony IS a serious offense, but charges such as child molestation should, nay, MUST be weighed differently than simple (then again, nothing is simple) bank extortion.


    The FCC is not eliminating Novice and Advanced licenses; they simply are no longer issued, but remain active and legitimate as long as the licensee wishes, or upgrades.
     
  10. WA9SVD

    WA9SVD Ham Member QRZ Page

    If that includes ibuprofen (AKA "Advil") then I'm four times guilty... who's gonna lock me up?:confused:
     

Share This Page

ad: DNyberg-1