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

The bill is not written for those who don't have any restrictions. It's written for those who do have restrictions and that's not an opinion, because that is a fact.

 

None of which changes the language in the bill. The language is clear and unconfusing.

If someone lives in a CA, he must notify and seek approval.

This can't be any clearer!

 

The first HOA lawsuit will clear it up for Charles, the League, and everybody, very quickly.

 

"If" they have an antenna restriction that precludes amateur radio communication.

If they don't, then they don't.

Therefore this bill doesn't apply to them.

 

Nonsense. Transposing words is ridiculous.
The word "if" appears no place in the implementing language:


(b) Additional Requirements.—In amending its rules as required by subsection (a), the Commission shall—

(1) require any licensee in an amateur radio service to notify and obtain prior approval from a community association concerning installation of an outdoor antenna;

(2) permit a community association to prohibit installation of any antenna or antenna support structure by a licensee in an amateur radio service on common property not under the exclusive use or control of the licensee; and

(3) subject to the standards specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a), permit a community association to establish reasonable written rules concerning height, location, size, and aesthetic impact of, and installation requirements for, outdoor antennas and support structures for the purpose of conducting communications in the amateur radio services.
We're done here.

 

In other news, where is ARRL in convincing Mr. Nelson to lift his standing "hold" on ARPA?

In the United States Senate, a hold is a parliamentary procedure permitted by the Standing Rules of the United States Senate which allows one or more Senators to prevent a motion from reaching a vote on the Senate floor.​

Talk about being "done here...."

 

The lawsuit will state the law as it's written specifically applies to HOA's that have restrictions that preclude amateur radio communications.

The lawsuit will not state the law as it's written equally applies to all HOA's regardless if they have any antenna restrictions or not.

The bill is written for HOA's with antenna restrictions. It's not written for HOA's who don't have any.

 

Too bad the actual wording that they captured on the paper doesn't reflect that.

 

I see you are having difficulty with interpretation...

In other words the rule ONLY applies "if",

There's an existing restriction "restrictive covenant" that -

(prohibits the application to amateur stations of any private land use restriction, including a restrictive covenant, that on it's face or as applied, precludes communication in an amateur radio service.)

The rule does not say it equally applies to anyone and everyone at any HOA, "regardless" if there's any restrictive covenant existing or not.

 

It's described in the very title of the bill.

The title of the bill doesn't say where NO private land use restrictions exist.

Clearly, the bill is written ONLY for HOA's with antenna restrictions. It's not written for HOA's who don't have any restrictions.

 

Too bad the actual bill text they captured on paper doesn't reflect that.

 

Drywall.

 

...he will insist that the real water was in the desert, and the water you are showing him is "fake news."

 

Read the actual words of the bill. It's all very simple.

The rule ONLY applies where a "restrictive covenant" exists.

The requirements in the bill does not apply where none exist.

 

Monotony doesn't make it true.
I'll regret asking but - show me precisely where it says that.

And don't say you already have because you have not! Absent a quote, not out of context, showing that , you are interpreting (read - wishful thinking). That only works with the tooth fairy.