RadioReference on Facebook   RadioReference on Twitter   RadioReference Blog
 

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > Amateur Radio > Amateur Radio General Discussion


Amateur Radio General Discussion - General discussion forum for amateur radio topics not covered by the above forums.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 07-30-2018, 7:16 PM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: W.Babylon N.Y. 11704
Posts: 481
Default Amateur Radio Parity Act (HR 555) is FCC Decision

This is a Partial Statement from the ARRL News Letter Website
The Complete Story is at the Posted Link--*(Second Story)*

ARRL Letter


---*(Parity Act Options Open Despite Removal from Defense Authorization Act Conference Report)*-----


ARRL Hudson Division Director and ad hoc Legislative Advocacy Committee Chair Mike Lisenco, N2YBB, said this week's removal of Amateur Radio Parity Act (HR 555) language from the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report was unfortunate, but does not kill the initiative. The Parity Act would ask the FCC to grant radio amateurs living in deed-restricted communities the right to install effective outdoor antennas. Lisenco said that while the language was removed from the final NDAA Conference Report, other viable options remain to see the Parity Act succeed.

"We were disappointed the Parity language didn't survive the conference process, but we do have other House-passed legislative vehicles that contain the language, including the Financial Services & General Government Appropriations bill, which funds the FCC," Lisenco said.

More Story at the Link Above
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 07-31-2018, 7:12 AM
DaveNF2G's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Rensselaer, NY
Posts: 8,853
Default

Your subject title does not match the information reported. It is not the FCC's decision, it is Congress'.
__________________
David T. Stark
NF2G WQMY980 KYR7128
ARRL VE & Registered Licensing Instructor
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 07-31-2018, 7:55 AM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: W.Babylon N.Y. 11704
Posts: 481
Default

Yah I See There is a few words missing supposed to be---is it a fcc decision--Oh Well you get the Picture tho no need to nit pic

Its Funny how Linesco is Pushing all the Blame on Nelson which is true But he was No Better trying to pressure a bill where the wording was in heavy favor for the hoa,s and not the Amatuers
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 08-06-2018, 4:14 PM
Lauri-Coyote's Avatar
Member
  Shack Photos
Shack photos
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Colorado/New Mexico and Washington DC
Posts: 103
Default

For what my opinion is worth, I am not in favor of this Parity Bill.
.
While it may be heresy here to say this, I don't want to see HOA contracts, openly entered into by residents, subverted by the Feds for the benefit of a special class.
.
If you bought property in a covenant protected community that excludes amateur radio antennas, what part of the sales contract did your attorney not explain to you in the clear tones of "No".... ?
.
This is a private property issue; do you want yet another intrusion in our lives by the dictates of the Federal Government- even if it would favor ham radio? Will it next be the USDA and the hobby class hog growers ?
.
Work locally with your HOA's- but leave Washington of of this.
.
For once the government gets involved, you just lost a freedom.
.
.
Lauri
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 08-06-2018, 5:14 PM
kg9nn's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Auburn, IN
Posts: 83
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lauri-Coyote View Post
For what my opinion is worth, I am not in favor of this Parity Bill.
.
While it may be heresy here to say this, I don't want to see HOA contracts, openly entered into by residents, subverted by the Feds for the benefit of a special class.
.
If you bought property in a covenant protected community that excludes amateur radio antennas, what part of the sales contract did your attorney not explain to you in the clear tones of "No".... ?
.
This is a private property issue; do you want yet another intrusion in our lives by the dictates of the Federal Government- even if it would favor ham radio? Will it next be the USDA and the hobby class hog growers ?

.
.
Lauri
I understand your point. It's a valid one - should the government interfere with private contracts. Or, in today's environment perhaps it would be more accurate to say "to what extent" instead of "should"

That being said, where I am (Indiana / Florida) it is difficult to impossible to find a home constructed in the last 20 years or so that isn't in a development where the developer instituted an association. Sadly, these associations tend to attract the least capable / worst boards who in turn hire questionable management companies. To wit: we have a neighbor who's wife has breast cancer. He has an aortic aneurysm. They are doing everything they can to make ends meet. The dues are $300 a year, but just not within this family's current budget. The board's response is "sounds like you're too poor to live in our exclusive neighborhood."

I wouldn't necessarily want my neighbor installing a 150' self supporting tower with a tri-bander and WARC beam. But a Ringo Ranger on the back side of the roof, or a dipole, or a vertical wouldn't bother me and isn't nearly the "massive property value killing eyesore" a realtor (venom for them reserved for another time) would say.

Likewise, our association says that any form of solar power (even panels on the back side of the roof) are "value killers".

Something needs to give - there should be reasonable accommodations. There has to be limit to how often the "destroys property values" card can be played. It's the real estate equivalent of "because I said so" - can't be proven, highly subjective, easily conflated with the cyclical nature of real estate market, etc.

Alight. Enough ranting. Bottom line - some reasonable accommodations are needed because it's impossible to avoid these associations anymore and because they're ran by people with no qualifications or a real estate background.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 08-06-2018, 5:49 PM
mmckenna's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: WTVLCA01DS0
Posts: 9,039
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kg9nn View Post
Alight. Enough ranting. Bottom line - some reasonable accommodations are needed because it's impossible to avoid these associations anymore and because they're ran by people with no qualifications or a real estate background.
I've gotta agree with Ms. Coyote on this one. When I purchased my house, I had a huge stack of paperwork that my wife and I had to read and sign.
We sort of drove the agent nuts, because we actually read the documents before signing them. That included the part where I agreed that I would not raise livestock of any kind on my property.
So, hobby hog farming is out, I knew that going into the deal. Not that I'd want to raise hogs.

I'm not in an HOA, and that was one of the things we decided when we went house shopping. It's not hard to find non-HOA areas. Yeah, you are probably not going to find many new homes that are not part of an HOA, but there are plenty of older homes that are not.
In fact, my back fence is the dividing line between an HOA controlled "over 55" neighborhood and my "anything goes" non-HOA neighborhood, much to the annoyances of my "over the fence" neighbors.

As for HOA boards, everyone I know who's in an HOA has a board made up of the residents. When my parents moved into a new home a few years ago, my dad made dang sure he got on the HOA board. Same reasons you complain about, he didn't want some jackwagon making stupid rules about where he could live.
And it worked well. Not only did he get on the HOA board, but he's been president for the last 5 years or so.
It's like voting, complaining about the HOA board but not willing to be a part of it is an issue. If you don't like what your HOA is doing, then act to make some changes.

As for amateur radio operators, I'm not convinced that someone holding an amateur radio license automatically makes them the sharpest tool in the shed. Some hams are not smart enough to think about their actions. Sure, the HOA might not let you put up a tower and beam, but there is a lot you can do with a wire, hidden antennas, low profile, etc. Moving into a neighborhood knowing full well that it's HOA controlled, then wanting the rules to change because of your hobby is getting to be on the silly side.
"reasonable accommodations" are exactly that. There are lots of low profile antennas that can be put up. It takes a little work, and may not be something you can buy pre-built off the internet, but it's possible.

I'm sure some variation of this will pass. Hopefully it's got some controls in it to keep it from getting abused.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 08-06-2018, 7:30 PM
Lauri-Coyote's Avatar
Member
  Shack Photos
Shack photos
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Colorado/New Mexico and Washington DC
Posts: 103
Default

.
I did not want to come off as unsympathic to the plight of hams unable to follow their hobby in a covenant'd neighborhood- I simply want the options for a remedy explored locally- not thru Federal laws.
.
I have three case scenarios of my own about how covenants affect me personally.
.
The first is my ranch- passed on to me by my mother's family; it has been part of us since before Colorado statehood. On it, I can do anything I wish - probably even a low yield nuclear detonation- without eliciting much more from the neighboring ranchers than a --
.
"What the 'H' is she up to NOW ?"
.
I own a second home in New Mexico, on a mesa top in a mountain towne made famous for certain activities. It is supposedly covenant'd (no radio antennas etc)- but all my neighbors are such quintessential geeks that my little vertical is all but invisible to them. Though hardly out of sight, it is virtually out of their thoughts. In a very mild manner, "not in your face" way I am violating some sort of HOA with all their approvals (I did informally inquire first, however, if anyone mind'd a "little antenna.")
.
The final case is my flat on Capitol Hill, in DC. I am not 'invested' there psychologically- its only for work- so I don't take it personally that I had to get the condo association's permission to put a flower pot on my deck (which I did btw- it took the consent of a board meeting.) The closest thing to an antenna that I'm allowed is inside my mobile devices- I think I can have one on my WiFi router- tho I'm not going to push that issue (sarcasm )
.
My point ?.... I don't want anyone to tell me what I can and can't do with my property (Colorado)--- but if I have accepted their conditions (like in DC) I will respect their rules. As for New Mexico, I got my neighbors tacit approval, tho nothing official.
.
.
McKenna said it very well- there are plenty of good options to allow someone to engage in their hobby without involving the Feds.
.... And remember too, that even if the government finally allows you to erect that 125' tower with the 5 element widespaced beam on 40- you'll then have to deal with a far worse adversary than the government-- you irrate neighbors.
.
.
Lauri
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2018, 9:31 AM
MTS2000des's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cobb County, GA Stadium Crime Zone
Posts: 3,254
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lauri-Coyote View Post
For what my opinion is worth, I am not in favor of this Parity Bill.
.
While it may be heresy here to say this, I don't want to see HOA contracts, openly entered into by residents, subverted by the Feds for the benefit of a special class.
Very well stated. This opens up a precedent which can become case law. Case law that can be very far reaching.

Here's an idea, it's called be a wise consumer. If one chooses to live in a private subdivision with covenants and restrictions, one has to be accountable and abide by them or do not enter into such agreements. It's as simple as that. Crying for the government to come save the day for one's personal choice is not the answer, and infringes upon others. People move into those types of neighborhoods because they want some protection against atrocious additions to the landscape. They choose to enter into such agreements.

Be accountable for one's own actions.
__________________
NO I will not help program your trunking radio. All opinions are exclusively those of the author and in no way reflect the position of his employer, contractors or other parties.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2018, 11:45 AM
Lauri-Coyote's Avatar
Member
  Shack Photos
Shack photos
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Colorado/New Mexico and Washington DC
Posts: 103
Default

"The Parity Act would ask the FCC to grant radio amateurs living in deed-restricted communities the right to install effective outdoor antennas."
................................... Quoted from the 26 July 2018 - The ARRL Letter.
.
Not only does this Parity Bill drive a wedge between owners and their properties, but it's language is sufficiently vague enuff to send chills down any freedom loving American's spine.
.
Just what is an "effective outdoor antenna ?"
.
The ARRL Letter goes on to say, however, its "not withstanding the preclusive language of covenants or homeowner association (HOA) regulations."
.
So if it does not contravene HOA regulations, just what is this Act ??
.
Furthermore, what is an "effective outdoor antenna " to one is not to another.
.
I, personally, am into radars- I "need' a 6 foot open rotating array to be 'effective." Will this 'Act' allow me to put one on the roof of my deed-restricted house with a Federal sanction ? Cool !
.
There are already a FCC regulation allowing a home owner an exemption to HOA antenna restrictions-- its for satellite TV dishes, up to a 1 metre diameter-- they are exempt.
(This shows how once written into Federal law,- that law becomes a dinosaur- When was the last time anyone saw a 1 metre TV dish used?...its also like the "cellular block" for 800 MHz receivers- analogue has been gone since the last Biblical Flood.)
.
Socialism can come at us in such innocently disguised forms.
.
.
Lauri
.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2018, 12:13 PM
KK4JUG's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: West Georgia
Posts: 1,622
Default

I'm sorta inclined to agree with the laissez-faire attitude of others. It's sad that neither the government nor the HOAs have any real knowledge of what they dealing with. The HOAs don't care about radio, one way or another. Rather. their concern is aesthetics. Congress only knows what someone tells them because, to the best of my knowledge, there are no licensed ham operators among them.
__________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a vet.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2018, 9:41 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: CO, USA
Posts: 93
Default

Honestly if big business was able to strong arm HOAs allowing OTA reception antennas and satellite dishes, a 2-way antenna of equal caliber should not be disallowed.

Yeah this probably still does not allow still larger HF antennas, but VHF/UHF should not be discriminated against.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2018, 10:28 PM
Lauri-Coyote's Avatar
Member
  Shack Photos
Shack photos
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Colorado/New Mexico and Washington DC
Posts: 103
Default

.
On a purely emotional level, Needs, I can agree with you. There "should' be an accommodation for certain antennas (at the exclusion of others?? ).... but where do you draw the line, and once drawn, how do you defend it against all those it discriminated against ?
Like the 1 metre satellite dishes, why was 1 metre or less ok, but not a 1.1 metre antenna ?
.
Okay, you're King of America-- How do YOU make the distinction ?
Remember, I think the very minimum for happiness is my rotating 6 foot open array radar. A 5 foot'r will not do....... why do you guys HATE me so much ??
.
(facetious !)
.
Lately my new appointment (ie: 'job') has brought me into contact with a lot of government attorneys. For good or bad, they have been whittling away on my psyche.
Tho I won't do this, I am sure if I ask anyone of them for the legal definition of "should" I will receive only a polite, dismissive smile. Laws have to be language specific, or else they are just a exercises in futility.
.
This is so much a local-rights issue. It 'should' be decided on a neighborhood, city, county, even state level. But not nationally. Why should a subdivision in South Dakota be forced to adhere to a law benefiting a select group in Florida ? Our Founding Fathers never envisioned the federal government involved in stuff like this.
.
.
Lauri
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 08-08-2018, 12:54 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: CO, USA
Posts: 93
Default

Yeah, it is tough to draw a line... I am wondering what my HOA will do if I just set up my simple 9ft whip in my backyard, it was a car CB antenna but I suspect it won't know where it is, except if I don't have a good ground plane...

They probably won't care if I have it at ground level, but probably would give a beef if it's attached to a chimney or something.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 08-08-2018, 2:35 AM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Peoria, AZ.
Posts: 3,425
Default

Doesn't the FCC have sole jurisdiction over radio communication services, such as ham radio?
How then would local or state goverments have any say beyond ensuring that any installations are done within building code for safety reasons?

John
Peoria, AZ
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 08-08-2018, 6:17 AM
W9BU's Avatar
Lead Wiki Manager
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brownsburg, Indiana
Posts: 5,182
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KB7MIB View Post
Doesn't the FCC have sole jurisdiction over radio communication services, such as ham radio?
How then would local or state goverments have any say beyond ensuring that any installations are done within building code for safety reasons?
Yes.

However, state and local governments do have the right to make laws regarding safety and suitable land use. The cellphone industry is regulated by the FCC, but the town I live in has zoning ordinances which restrict the location and height of cellphone towers depending on how the land was zoned. Perfectly legal.

On the specific topic of amateur radio antennas, PRB-1, which serves to exempt amateur radio operators from restrictive zoning laws, has been incorporated into Part 97. Most state and local governments have adjusted their laws to accommodate PRB-1. But, those state and local governments may still require that you file for a zoning variance and get a building permit should you decide to put up a 120 foot tower. They can't say "no" to your 120 foot tower, but they can make you jump through a lot of hoops.

The issue that the ARPA is trying to address has nothing to do with state or local laws. ARPA is trying to address private land contracts, known as covenants, conditions, and restrictions that a land owner agrees to, by contract, when they purchase the land. When I bought my house, the purchase agreement included me agreeing to be bound by the CC&Rs already in place for my property. Therein lies the push-back to the ARPA. CC&Rs are part of a private land contract and the purchaser is free to find land elsewhere that is not bound by a CC&R.

Fred Hopengarten K1VR, an attorney with extensive legal experience regarding antenna towers, has written a paper addressing the current language of the ARPA. It's an interesting read: https://www.kkn.net/~n6tv/Just_Say_No_to_S.1534_v4.pdf
__________________
Lead Wiki Manager and Forum Moderator.

"The whole world's living in a digital dream. It's not really there, it's all on the screen." -- WB6ACU
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 08-08-2018, 7:31 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Orleans region
Posts: 2,541
Default

Some years back I had bought a house in a restricted sub division. There was restrictions on what you could do. One of them was cutting down trees. the restriction said you could cut down only 20% of the trees on your property. But they didn't define what size a tree had to be to be considered.

This was before hurricane Katrina time. Well there were a number of pine trees really close to the house. I slowly started removing them to protect the house from any damage by the pine trees. Not much was said about the trees being cut down, cut into 8 foot lengths and dragged out to the street for the pulp wood guys to haul them away.

Nothing was said to me, but the neighborhood group went to the state and complained I was logging on my property. The state asked it the lot was 5 acres or larger. They told the state that it was only 1.25 acres. The state told them that it wasn't considered a logging operation. So the group went away with their tails between their legs.

I cut down a large tree near my front door on a Saturday. Sunday morning there was a knock at my front door. It was 3 men from the neighborhood committee. They were complaining I was cutting down trees I wasn't allowed to cut. I asked them under what restriction were they talking about. They informed me I couldn't cut down any tree over 3 inches in diameter with out their approval.

Told the group to wait while I go get my deed. I sat there reading the deed and found no mention of tree size or their name on my deed. They asked me what I was looking for. Told them I didn't see any restriction in tree size, just a limit of 20 percent of the trees on my property. Plus I didn't see their name on the deed.

They told me that they had changed the restriction recently. Told them that I would do them a favor. I pulled out a blank piece of paper and started to draw them a map. They asked what I was doing. Told them that this was a map so they wouldn't get lost finding their way to the courthouse. I want to make sure you can find it. I want you to sue me for cutting down the trees on my property. But you need to understand that when you loose the case, you will pay all the legal fees involved and my lost wages.

Never heard from them again. But through my neighbor, I learned that the same group was pushing for cement bulkheads to be put over the culverts going under our driveways. I refused for 2 years to be any part of it. When someone got the nerve to ask why I wouldn't do it, I told them it was not my property. If they wanted the bulkheads over the ends of the culverts, then go to the Parish, as it was their property. So much for any more bulkheads being forced on people in the sub division.

I moved out a couple of years before the hurricane hit. I went down there after the hurricane and my house was the only house in the subdivision that didn't suffer damage from pine trees hitting the homes there. Several people saw me and commented that I knew what I was doing in removing the trees to protect the house.

Bottom line here is you can take a positive stand and say no to some of the stupid restrictions that some neighborhood groups try to come up with. Even if they make changes, they changes have to follow guide lines that are legal.

Take the plight of a military vet that had a small flag in a flower pot on his porch. He just about lost his house over being fined by the Gestapo neighborhood group for displaying the small American flag.

Bottom line here is many of these restrictions are imposed by people that moved into the sub division from the city and are trying to make the country function like a city piece of property. Being reasonable is not part of their vocabulary.
__________________
Jim
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 08-08-2018, 9:16 AM
krokus's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 3,223
Default

HOAs are a blight on society, and should be cast into the sun. Before any of them would be telling me what I could do with my property they would have to be paying my mortgage.

If people could buy property without an HOA, with a house that is less than 20 years old, they would be a slightly less offensive. My wife and I bought a house that was more than 25 years old, specifically to avoid the fire hazards associated with current construction techniques, and avoid any HOA.

That said, I have been leery of parity act, due to interfering in private matters.

Sent using Tapatalk
__________________
Generic radio geek, in southeast Michigan.
PSR-500, TM-742, TM-V71,TH-78, HTX-420, IC-2AT, IC-2E (clone), Pro-39, BC-235XLT, TK-290, XTS-5000
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 08-08-2018, 9:50 AM
MTS2000des's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cobb County, GA Stadium Crime Zone
Posts: 3,254
Default

No one forces anyone to agree to anything, but what I have a problem is, the Federal government interfering with lawfully signed contract law between private parties after a contract was mutually entered into by those parties.

If one doesn't agree with the terms, either negotiate them, or walk and spend the money elsewhere. It's really as simple as that. I live in a subdivision without an HOA for this reason. It was a choice I made. Others need to do the same and quit whining to the government to save them from their poor choice as a consumer.
__________________
NO I will not help program your trunking radio. All opinions are exclusively those of the author and in no way reflect the position of his employer, contractors or other parties.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 08-08-2018, 10:37 AM
KK4JUG's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: West Georgia
Posts: 1,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTS2000des View Post
If one doesn't agree with the terms, either negotiate them, or walk and spend the money elsewhere. It's really as simple as that.
It's not really "as simple as that," We're not buying an washer or even a car. People frequently have specific needs (number of bedrooms or baths, location, etc.). The quantity and quality of the housing market is quite limited when taking the buyer's requirements into consideration.

In my town (about 200,000) there are probably 6 or 8 place that sell the Maytag washer I have. There's not another house like mine
__________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a vet.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 08-08-2018, 3:31 PM
milf's Avatar
Careful, I CAN hear you!
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 12,309
Default

And here is another fact to chew on: Unless you got some kind of grandfathered clause you do not own a damn single piece of land in this nation. If your paying property taxes you do not own that land. Period. Think you fully own it, stop paying for it every year then. Lets see how long it takes before your out on your butt and a bank or land bank of an municipality/county/state is selling/auctioning off what you claim is yours? DO you have a legal document that says you have the full mineral and water rights on this parcel that you think you own? Put that into your mind before you go into the other battles of so called property rights and aesthetics vs property values etc... There is no winning in this game, there is only being a legal step ahead. Read the paperwork and the microscopic legalese at the corners, bottom of pages, and underneath the main textual areas.... And then run out of ink signing in triplicate. Do not want to play the game by that teams rules on their home field? Find another field and team to play with. And lets not talk about if your bordering any Municipal/County/State, or Federal properties.. AKA so called Public Lands.... Two words to prove you do not own crap... Imminent Domain.
__________________
Admin for AR, IN, LA, MS, and TN
PRO-92, PRO-92B, PRO-96, BCD396XT, BCD436HP+DMR & NXDN
APX6000XE, SD-5R

Last edited by milf; 08-08-2018 at 3:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All information here is Copyright 2012 by RadioReference.com LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger
Copyright 2015 by RadioReference.com LLC Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions