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