felony Conviction

[kb1fua]

I passed all tests and not volunteering no information I had done all the right things my father, and 3 friends on the same day done the same thing and gotten their license in 3 to 5 days that was 5 years ago. I'm still waiting.

😑Well...I guess all I can say at this point is, "Good Luck" on your wait.🤦
You have been given advise as to what to do. What you do with it is up to you. ✌

 

[AK9R]

Is WREX300 your GMRS callsign?

 

[KevinC]

Is WREX300 your GMRS callsign?

I sure hope not because he answered "No" to this question...

Has the Applicant or any party to this application or amendment, or any party directly or indirectly controlling the Applicant, ever been convicted of a felony by any state or federal court?

 

[k6cpo]

I passed all tests and not volunteering no information I had done all the right things my father, and 3 friends on the same day done the same thing and gotten their license in 3 to 5 days that was 5 years ago. I'm still waiting.

You had 14 days from the time of the test to send in your explanation information and your justification for why you should be granted a license. If you didn't do that, then your application was cancelled. By now it's probably too late to have the VE team resubmit your test results so you'll probably have to start from scratch again.

 

[N6JPA]

I passed all tests and not volunteering no information I had done all the right things my father, and 3 friends on the same day done the same thing and gotten their license in 3 to 5 days that was 5 years ago. I'm still waiting.

I would take that as a rejection of my license application. I don't think you will ever be approved for a ham radio license. I don't know what you are convicted of. There is a child molester that was already a ham that had his renewal flagged and it has been in limbo for ten+ years.

 

[dlwtrunked]

I would take that as a rejection of my license application. I don't think you will ever be approved for a ham radio license. I don't know what you are convicted of. There is a child molester that was already a ham that had his renewal flagged and it has been in limbo for ten+ years.

And done one's time for something in the past is not relevant to the future.

 

[GlobalNorth]

Was the felony conviction in civilian courts [County, State, or Federal] or in military courts?

If it was a non-violent crime and it has been many years ago, you may be able to petition the Court to have it re-classified as a misdemeanor/expunged if you've had a clean record since then [minor traffic offense/s aside] in a civilian Court. If you pled or were found guilty in a military Court Martial to a felony, you are pretty much stuck. You'd likely have a BCD to go along with it and the FCC would find out. Contact a local criminal defense attorney where the Court is for definitive answers.

If the crime was violent or of a nature that would 'shock the conscious' of the Court, you are at the mercy of the FCC licensing branch.

 

[MTS2000des]

Here's one for you, a real example of FAIL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. Edward Wayne Ferguson, N4YTR, was in fact, a CONVICTED SERIAL PEDOPHILE who was serving a multi-year sentence in Georgia for many counts of raping children. He in fact used ham radio to contact many of his victims as an Explorer advisor. He (thankfully) died in prison of COVID and thus us Georgia taxpayers don't have to fund keeping this perv on the dole and many of his past victims can now rest knowing this monster is tits up.

Yet the FCC, in it's infinite wisdom, still shows his FCC license as "active" despite being offline for "red light review" 14 years ago. You can't make this up. Does the FCC even care? Asking for a friend. If a serial pervert who molested dozens of known victims and used amateur radio could even renew his license from behind bars (in 2010 he was in fact, in Georgia DOC custody when the application was filed), do they really care?

 

[GlobalNorth]

Is it a FCC issue or another agency issue?

In a perfect world, the FCC enforcement bureau would have direct connection to the National Agency Check system and perhaps they do. However, employees drop the ball, supervisors and managers don't follow up, agency directions change [ does the FCC care about felon amateurs or chasing billions in telecom revenue to make their political masters in Congress happy ]. Even the NAC check system is far from perfect.

I bought a new motorcycle once and it took me over a year to get a incorrect title and VIN error corrected. No one cared and one DOT employee said "Why care? You have a new motorcycle". Yeah... tell that to the cop on the 11PM traffic stop who suspects a stolen motorcycle...

Back to the FCC, who is professionally responsible?

 

[MTS2000des]

We're talking about 14 years. My niece has 2 kids and graduated high school and college in that time frame. Obviously someone contacted them and thus, this pervo's license was set aside and then...nothing. He renewed while in custody of GDOC. Explain that.

"Get up, get get down, the FCC is a joke in your town". They don't care about part 90, 95, 97 et al. Unless it's owned by AT&T, Verizon or T-Mobile, they could care less. Change my mind.

 

[fog]

You had 14 days from the time of the test to send in your explanation information and your justification for why you should be granted a license. If you didn't do that, then your application was cancelled. By now it's probably too late to have the VE team resubmit your test results so you'll probably have to start from scratch again.

Exactly this. This is explained in the VE manual, but it's not something I have encountered in the wild at test sessions. Someone linked to it previously, but FCC Qualification Question is the best explanation I have seen. From the site:

The applicant is required to provide an explanation within 14 days of the application data being submitted to the FCC. If documents are not sent to the FCC during the 14 day filing window, the application will be dismissed without action.

I strongly suspect that your application has been dismissed for not sending this in and is not actually pending.

You might also check out https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-11-1315A1.txt which is terribly formatted, but the FCC writes (footnotes elided, emphasis mine):

The Commission has consistently applied character standards developed for broadcasters to applicants and licensees in the amateur radio service. The Commission’s character policies provide that a felony conviction is relevant to the evaluation of a licensee’s character qualifications, because felonies are serious crimes that reflect on the licensee’s propensity to obey the law. Before it will revoke a license or deny an application based on the felony conviction, however, the Commission takes into consideration factors that may mitigate a licensee’s felonious misconduct. For example, the Commission reviews the willfulness of the misconduct, the frequency of the misconduct, how recently the misconduct occurred, the seriousness of the misconduct, efforts made to remedy the wrong, overall record of compliance with FCC rules and policies, and rehabilitation. Thus, a felony conviction may disqualify a person from holding an amateur radio license, but does not necessarily disqualify the person. The question of disqualification is addressed on a case-by-case basis.

So, a felony conviction is not an automatic disqualifier, but it does require an explanation to the FCC about why they should grant the license. Based on the earlier note, that must be submitted via email within 14 days of your test session. (Also note that it becomes public unless you specifically request confidentiality.)

You might try reaching out to the ARRL for help. Otherwise, you might need to find an attorney dealing with this stuff.

 

[techman210]

I can’t believe after all this time… none of you looked up the name of the license holder of WREX300 and put that name into a search engine.

Sheesh

 

[dryfb]

I can’t believe after all this time… none of you looked up the name of the license holder of WREX300 and put that name into a search engine.

Sheesh

I'll just put this here for those wanting info, it contains somewhat graphic descriptions: F054060 California Court of Appeal

 

[trentbob]

I'll just put this here for those wanting info, it contains somewhat graphic descriptions: F054060 California Court of Appeal

Holy cow! "Somewhat" graphic descriptions?.. the appeal had some validity but the case was affirmed.

Thanks for the info.