[FedCom] "On Scene" Barnes MAP/ANGB

Thu, 25 Apr 2002 08:44:31 -0400

Was anyone able to confirm this "New FAA Mandate" as fact?  I'm confused.
Paul said he called the FAA and they confirmed it.  Has anyone else called
the FAA?  Also, if the FAA truly confirmed the restriction of scanner,
receiver use t controlled airports, why would Paul then call his
Congressman?  Again, has anyone confirmed or nullified the veracity of this
secret law?

"Thomas J. Dalrymple" <[email protected]> on 04/23/2002 07:58:10 PM

Please respond to [email protected]

To:   [email protected]
cc:    (bcc: Arthur-Bryan Phelps/Allentown/Field/OVR)
Subject:  RE: [FedCom] "On Scene" Barnes MAP/ANGB

Silly question......  has anyone (other than the original poster) called
their
congressman or senator to verify the existence of this law?  Larry Van
Horn, do
you have any info?  Paul Cobb, you were the original poster; who's your
congressman and what's the name of the person who quoted this law to you?

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
On Behalf Of ed
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: [FedCom] "On Scene" Barnes MAP/ANGB

ken,  you may be right that nobody on the list is up for a legal challenge,
especially if it involves being arrested.  unfortunately, our legal system
requires people to challenge egregious laws in order for them to be struck
down, and you must show you've been harmed by a law in order to have a
case.  the history of jurisprudence is full of examples of this.

understandably, few people on this list want to deal with this and pay
money it requires to do this.  as for how this stupid policy became law,
it's probably safe to say that public input was neither solicited nor
seriously considered.  american democracy can work, but only if people
actively participate (and this means a lot more than just voting.)

fear and intimidation tactics are the usual methods used to enact and keep
egregious laws like this in force.  if we do nothing about it, then we get
the laws and law enforcement that we deserve.  the frustrating part about
this particular situation is that nobody can even prepare to challenge a
law if their own elected representative won't let them read it because it's
supposedly "secret" (this is for your own good, after all.)

if people on this list believe this will be the last law enacted that
criminalizes monitoring the public airwaves, then they're going to be sadly
mistaken.  let's look into challenging this--a good start would be to
obtain the text of the specific law that supposedly criminalizes monitoring
at an airport.  contrary to popular belief, we do have some federal laws
that you're not allowed to read.  challenging the secrecy of this
particular law may not require being charged with violating
it.  challenging the law itself is another story.

anyone want to dig deeper on this?

-ed

_______________________________________________
FedCom mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom