Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site trsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!trsvax!mikey
From: mikey@trsvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: Michigan mobile scanner radio law
Message-ID: <55200131@trsvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 11-Jan-85 10:53:00 EST
Article-I.D.: trsvax.55200131
Posted: Fri Jan 11 10:53:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 14-Jan-85 01:31:30 EST
References: <433@ihu1h.UUCP>
Lines: 22
Nf-ID: #R:ihu1h:-43300:trsvax:55200131:000:905
Nf-From: trsvax!mikey    Jan 11 09:53:00 1985



Does this mean that a Technician class can't have a 2m rig that has
the VHF public service frequencies in his car? (i.e. the new Kenwood)
Or does the fact that the law specifies receiver and not a transciever
or a transmitting receiver, as some areas clasify amatuer equipment, 
give some immunity to Hams?

Even if they are obnoxious, most small communities would probably give 
anyone a permit if they ask.  The bigger cities try to use laws like
this that were not intended to restrict the general populace to
as more controls over the publics freedom.  Face it, no criminal that
intended to stay in business very long would ever go on a job without
a scanner.  In a lot of areas, the laws are intended to try to restrict
this (ineffective) or at least give the police "first cause" to detain
and search someone.

Sounds like a good basis for a court case if it gets abused.

mikey at trsvax
KA5MJQ