Use Ham Radio without a license?

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by KI4AX, Sep 13, 2017.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Subscribe
ad: L-MFJ
ad: l-assoc
  1. N1FMV

    N1FMV Subscriber QRZ Page

    Don't forget to give the zombies a 5-9 signal report.

  2. K1ABX

    K1ABX Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well, civil rights aren't a problem, considering you're not a government agent. And if you were to live in Texas, you wouldn't even have to justify your actions by claiming self-defense :)
  3. K1VSK

    K1VSK Ham Member QRZ Page

    What it's "got to do" with ham radio is your dubious metaphor describing that set of living conditions somehow warranting a need for ham radio
  4. K1VSK

    K1VSK Ham Member QRZ Page

    Nothing! My comment was simply a response to W2JKT's inserting an irrelevant comment.
  5. KE0CAA

    KE0CAA XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Yes I am sorry to any preppers who I may have offended with my attempt at humor.
  6. K9STH

    K9STH Ham Member QRZ Page


    You really need to do some research before making such comments about Texas!

    Glen, K9STH
  7. W2JKT

    W2JKT Ham Member QRZ Page

    My comment was not irrelevant at all. Someone incorrectly stated that it is not illegal for an unlicensed person to transmit on the ham bands in an emergency, and it clearly is.

    If you want an irrelevant comment, here you go:

    The oldest known goldfish lived to be 41 years old. His name was Fred.
    KI4AX and N3AB like this.
  8. K1VSK

    K1VSK Ham Member QRZ Page

    The relevant regulations have been cited previously here contradicting your opinion.

    If you can quote any reg which supports your opinion, I can't find it - can you?
    K3XR likes this.
  9. WB2WIK

    WB2WIK Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    The original post really had nothing to do with selling radios. Anyone can buy ham gear, and that's repeatedly acknowledged.

    If you refer to my original post (#19) you'll see why this particular ad is a problem.
  10. K1ABX

    K1ABX Ham Member QRZ Page

    You're right :) Here is the citation :

    Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

    (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

    (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

    (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

    (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

    (3) he reasonably believes that:

    (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

    (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Share This Page