Oops...
New fcc license rules
- Thread starter WQJQ863
- Start date
- Status
Oops...
Try one of these:
1. It was an accident
2. It wasn't me. I was in Cleveland.
3. I got mixed up with the wrong crowd.
4. I had an abusive childhood
5. I was doing/holding it for someone else.
6. The radio malfunctioned...20 times.
Now Now, Guys-- don't go off to a hasty judgement- (smiles)....... But it doesn't appear very good for you WQJQ.
.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...........
.
.
I think the lesson here is; be careful about what we complain about, least it draw some unfavorable attention upon thyselves..............
.
..........."The lady doth protest too much, methinks ,,,,,,,,,," Hamlet
.
.
A lively, thought provoking discourse, all the same !
.
.
...............CF
.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...........
.
.
I think the lesson here is; be careful about what we complain about, least it draw some unfavorable attention upon thyselves..............
.
..........."The lady doth protest too much, methinks ,,,,,,,,,," Hamlet
.
.
A lively, thought provoking discourse, all the same !
.
.
...............CF
Last edited:
I found the same result, and it's well after the 2003 event cited by the OP. An interesting 'coincidence', how many of that name are in that town, playing with radios?
This would be the sort of thing that drives the purpose of the felony question in the first place. Again, it's not an automatic no-go, but it bears a close look.
The option is to answer no on the form, and perjure himself on federal forms, and that's never a great idea, as one P. Manafort is finding out right now.
Another 5.2 seconds on Google finds some QRZ activity that would tilt the scales further.
Some people are their own worst enemy.
*sigh*
Thank you for the correction and clarification.
To me, that doesn't make sense in any of those services. Take Part 87, for example. The only real disqualifying felonies for obtaining a pilot license are those dealing with drugs and those dealing with security issues. So someone with a felony conviction is allowed to fly, but not obtain a license for operating a radio in that aircraft? Makes zero sense to me.
GMRS? Why should a felon be prohibited from using a pair of GMRS radios to communicate with family members? They can use FRS. Do we simply not want a felon using the full 50 watts? Or is it the detachable antenna?
Make no mistake, I am 100% for punishing criminals to the maximum extent possible. Take away their voting, take away their guns, keep them on probation/parole for years. I'm great with all that. But a radio license? That's just silly to me, and the FCC has absolutely no business getting themselves involved with that.
If this guy was jamming police radio, and it looks like he was (busted!!!!), what if he would have plead down to a misdemeanor, for example...some nonsense charge instead of the felony. Still okay to issue him a license? Of course not. He has a propensity for violating the FCC regulations, regardless of the level of the crime. That's what the FCC should be dealing with; people who violate FCC regulations.
So WQJQ863, what did you do that caused the felony that is the subject of this thread?
prcguy
prcguy
To me, that doesn't make sense in any of those services. Take Part 87, for example. The only real disqualifying felonies for obtaining a pilot license are those dealing with drugs and those dealing with security issues. So someone with a felony conviction is allowed to fly, but not obtain a license for operating a radio in that aircraft? Makes zero sense to me.
GMRS? Why should a felon be prohibited from using a pair of GMRS radios to communicate with family members? They can use FRS. Do we simply not want a felon using the full 50 watts? Or is it the detachable antenna?
Make no mistake, I am 100% for punishing criminals to the maximum extent possible. Take away their voting, take away their guns, keep them on probation/parole for years. I'm great with all that. But a radio license? That's just silly to me, and the FCC has absolutely no business getting themselves involved with that.
If this guy was jamming police radio, and it looks like he was (busted!!!!), what if he would have plead down to a misdemeanor, for example...some nonsense charge instead of the felony. Still okay to issue him a license? Of course not. He has a propensity for violating the FCC regulations, regardless of the level of the crime. That's what the FCC should be dealing with; people who violate FCC regulations.
Going back to what Token said (in #17), a criminal background of even minor offenses could be an indicator of a person's character or temperament. I don't want the captain of the airliner I'm on to be known for taking shortcuts in procedures, for instance, An "I'm not gonna check that because it's probably still OK" attitude has no place in commercial aviation (or private aviation either, for that matter). Any criminal record should not be cause for a rubber stamp denial, however. As others have said, it should be a case-by-case decision and hopefully that decision won't be made by some neophyte in the office who got the task based on lack of seniority.
Token
Member
I think you might be missing the point by a bit. To simplify paperwork all of those services use the same form. Makes sense to me, why have a service specific form for each if one form can do it all. Then, if any of those services have a valid reason for asking such a question, the question will be present for all services. It is up to the FCC if they want to consider the answers for all services.
You are also making an assumption that a "yes" answer, even with explanation, is an automatic disqualifier. There has been no indication in the ham community that this is the case.
This policy has been in place for decades, even if the question was not on the form. Some people, a very small number, have had their ham licenses revoked or suspended based on past felony convictions, and more people have been reviewed and allowed to keep their ham licenses.
I am not really into the whole pilot thing, but I don't think a pilot needs a Part 87 license, I thought they were, like CB, license by rule? At least on the aircraft side. However ground stations and people doing installation / development of aviation communications systems do, maybe, need a license?
The same Form 605 is used to apply for a GROL, and that license can absolutely facilitate contact with sensitive areas of airfields, ship yards, and public service maintenance facilities.
So it looks to me as if a this kind of certificate can be used for entry into the commercial aviation field or industry. I can kind of understand maybe wanting to know if people involved in such areas have a felony conviction or not.
But you admit there are disqualifiers to obtaining a pilots license. How is it determined that a person fits one of those disqualifiers? Part of the process might be to ask the question. And then it can be determined via investigation if the offense was one that might disqualify or not.
And so far that is all we have any indication of on the Form 605. They are asking the question and requesting further clarification of the circumstances if the answer is yes. No one has said that a felony charge or conviction is an automatic disqualifier, but you have to start the process someplace.
You, or I, don't have to like it, but the fact is that the FCC is charge with and can deny or revoke a radio license, for most services, based on "character". They seldom do, but they can. One often accepted indicator of character, and documentation of past actions to support such an indication, is a felony conviction. Without this ability the regulations would have to be written much more rigidly in order to specify "people that have done these specific things are ALWAYS ineligible to hold a license".
As long as the FCC is NOT using a past felony conviction as a blanket disqualifier, without regard to the circumstances of the conviction, I have no issue at all with the question being on the form. And if there are ANY valid past felony convictions that might possibly make a person ineligible to hold a license (ham or other included service) it is valid for the question to be on the form.
T!
You are also making an assumption that a "yes" answer, even with explanation, is an automatic disqualifier. There has been no indication in the ham community that this is the case.
This policy has been in place for decades, even if the question was not on the form. Some people, a very small number, have had their ham licenses revoked or suspended based on past felony convictions, and more people have been reviewed and allowed to keep their ham licenses.
I am not really into the whole pilot thing, but I don't think a pilot needs a Part 87 license, I thought they were, like CB, license by rule? At least on the aircraft side. However ground stations and people doing installation / development of aviation communications systems do, maybe, need a license?
The same Form 605 is used to apply for a GROL, and that license can absolutely facilitate contact with sensitive areas of airfields, ship yards, and public service maintenance facilities.
So it looks to me as if a this kind of certificate can be used for entry into the commercial aviation field or industry. I can kind of understand maybe wanting to know if people involved in such areas have a felony conviction or not.
But you admit there are disqualifiers to obtaining a pilots license. How is it determined that a person fits one of those disqualifiers? Part of the process might be to ask the question. And then it can be determined via investigation if the offense was one that might disqualify or not.
And so far that is all we have any indication of on the Form 605. They are asking the question and requesting further clarification of the circumstances if the answer is yes. No one has said that a felony charge or conviction is an automatic disqualifier, but you have to start the process someplace.
You, or I, don't have to like it, but the fact is that the FCC is charge with and can deny or revoke a radio license, for most services, based on "character". They seldom do, but they can. One often accepted indicator of character, and documentation of past actions to support such an indication, is a felony conviction. Without this ability the regulations would have to be written much more rigidly in order to specify "people that have done these specific things are ALWAYS ineligible to hold a license".
As long as the FCC is NOT using a past felony conviction as a blanket disqualifier, without regard to the circumstances of the conviction, I have no issue at all with the question being on the form. And if there are ANY valid past felony convictions that might possibly make a person ineligible to hold a license (ham or other included service) it is valid for the question to be on the form.
T!
nd5y
Member
Some of these concerns may stem from things that happened back when they were "young and stupid." Those convictions don't go away but If they could truly show me that things have changed, I wouldn't have a problem. That said, I'm not the one who makes the decision.
The 605, with its Felony question is a quaint throw back to a time when character matter'd in this country. As such, these antediluvian vestiges should be in display cases as examples of how judgemental a society we once were. We are so much more progressive now.
.
Behaviors that used to be inexcusable are dismissed. Its never anyone's fault - we have an apologist society to explain away every sin.
.
Why should events that occur'd in reckless youth mar one's future happiness- even if in that reckless, youthful exuberience it wiped out a family in a DWI. Forgive and forget---
.
You jamm'd police radio systems?, How dare you ask me about that, it was in my past.-- I am rehabilitated now!.. don't *You* judge *Me!*
.
.
The question of character is one of the last safe guards a society has before it grants privilege to a member. I find it amusing how in these forum, there is always a hue and cry for the FCC to clean up the ham band anarchy, yet the same crowd will get their panties in a wad over a question about Character on a government form. You can't have it both ways, Cowboys.
.
Personally I have dealt with some very brilliant, talent'd people --but whose character was such I wouldn't entrust them to run a pop'cicle stand. And in an authority position, I have exercised my power to question their character. Even if all qualification boxes are chek'd off, if their character smells---Next! (ask any single female about her dating 'smell test"... )
.
___________________________________________________
.
Token, I admire your calm cool thesis's- very thoughtful and concise....
.
.
.
..............................CF
.
.
Happy New Year's !
.
Behaviors that used to be inexcusable are dismissed. Its never anyone's fault - we have an apologist society to explain away every sin.
.
Why should events that occur'd in reckless youth mar one's future happiness- even if in that reckless, youthful exuberience it wiped out a family in a DWI. Forgive and forget---
.
You jamm'd police radio systems?, How dare you ask me about that, it was in my past.-- I am rehabilitated now!.. don't *You* judge *Me!*
.
.
The question of character is one of the last safe guards a society has before it grants privilege to a member. I find it amusing how in these forum, there is always a hue and cry for the FCC to clean up the ham band anarchy, yet the same crowd will get their panties in a wad over a question about Character on a government form. You can't have it both ways, Cowboys.
.
Personally I have dealt with some very brilliant, talent'd people --but whose character was such I wouldn't entrust them to run a pop'cicle stand. And in an authority position, I have exercised my power to question their character. Even if all qualification boxes are chek'd off, if their character smells---Next! (ask any single female about her dating 'smell test"...
).
___________________________________________________
.
Token, I admire your calm cool thesis's- very thoughtful and concise....
.
.
.
..............................CF
.
.
Happy New Year's !
Last edited:
MTS2000des
5B2_BEE00 Czar
It's also a time when one did their time, and were allowed to re-enter society after paying their debt, and moved on with their life being a productive member or re-offending. One can follow their record or their record can follow them.
Hardly. Ask anyone who was caught with a certain plant now widely enjoyed by affluent white people and legal in California. Many of those who were convicted of felonies for possession and sale of a product in high demand were disenfranchised. During the "war on drugs" in the 1980s and 1990s many young people ended up with felony convictions, some served more time than CHILD MOLESTERS.
Do you really think that because someone at 17 (in my state at 17 you go to "grown folks" court and get a "grown folks" record) that used/sold a little weed they aren't qualified to have a HAM license? I find this absurd and another way we keep those folks from moving upward. Say it isn't so.
Because you are saint and have NEVER committed ANY crime that would be classified as a felony, right?
All your MP3 files, AVIs and such are properly licensed and you have receipts for them right? All your software is licensed, you have proof of this, right?
You've never stolen, lied, or hurt anyone physically right?
Some have paid for their crimes, and some have yet to pay.
I went to high school with a guy who was a star quaterback. In 1994, he was drunk and wiped out an entire family on a Sunday morning. He served 15 years of his life of hard time in a Georgia prison. He hasn't been back.
There is not one day he doesn't feel remorse for his crime. He visits his victims grave sites. Is he a saint? Nope. Did he do something horrible? Yup. Was it his INTENTION to kill 3 people with a vehicle. Absolutely not. He was 19 years old and stupid like you and I were.
He will spend the rest of his life paying for his crime. Especially when people like you won't ever let go, because you are too busy compensating for your own guilt feelings, by constantly harping on others you don't even know.
You or I do not know all the details of the case, nor do we know if the case has even been adjudicated.
Things often take a different turn in court assuming it even goes there.
Broadbrushing all who might have a felony does nothing to "clean up" the ham bands. Plenty of "felony free" lids will still be on 80/20 and anywhere else lids gather.
What it does do is disenfranchise many who may find amateur radio to be a constructive, educational and excellent medium for spending spare time. It is, after all, a HOBBY that should be enjoyed and partaken by all who can show technical proficiency and non-pecuniary interest in the art of RADIO.
Unless they have a history with the FCC, a felony conviction should not be an automatic disqualification.
You just made my point. There are plenty of folks in authority with spotless criminal histories, a credit score of 800+, and cannot be trusted farther than you can spit.
OTOH, I know a couple of people with non-violent B.S. drug felonies who I would trust with my life and I know they have my back quicker than someone who may carry a badge. I've entrusted them with my home, my vehicles, and my life.
Character should not be based on what is on paper alone. One who claims he/she has perfect character is a liar.
This subject is already being discussed here...
https://forums.radioreference.com/a...-605-will-ask-applicants-felony-question.html
So I'm closing this one.
https://forums.radioreference.com/a...-605-will-ask-applicants-felony-question.html
So I'm closing this one.
- Status
