Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site redwood.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!hao!hplabs!hpda!fortune!rhino!redwood!rpw3
From: rpw3@redwood.UUCP (Rob Warnock)
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio,net.auto,net.legal
Subject: Re: NJ exempts hams from mobile scanner law
Message-ID: <138@redwood.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Jan-85 19:21:05 EST
Article-I.D.: redwood.138
Posted: Thu Jan 24 19:21:05 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 28-Jan-85 07:16:38 EST
References: <452@ihu1h.UUCP>
Organization: [Consultant], Foster City, CA
Lines: 64
Xref: watmath net.ham-radio:2295 net.auto:5533 net.legal:1360

Bob, thanks for the update, but your "Subject:" says "mobile scanner law",
and I don't see "mobile" anywhere in the excerpt you quote:

+---------------
| 	2A:127-4.  "Any	 person	 who  installs	or  has	 a  short-wave
| 	receiver  operative  on	 frequencies  assigned	by the FCC for
| 	fire, police, municipal	or other governmental uses, is	guilty
| 	of  a  misdemeanor crime of the	fourth degree, unless a	permit
| 	therefor has first been	obtained from the chief	of the	county
| 	police,	 or  from the chief of the police of the municipality,
| 	wherein	such person resides.
+---------------

And I am just a little bit, no, a LOT concerned that this is just the
tip of the iceberg, or the first slice of the salami game. Sure, hams
are now a priviledged class, so that makes everybody in this newsgroup
heave a big sigh of relief, but why should ANY class be so priviledged
over ordinary people. (Note that there is no guarantee that the criminals
this law is intended to deter are not hams... or politicians!)

+---------------
| 	This section does not apply to	any  fire,  police,  or	 other
| 	governmental  official of the state, or	of any county or muni-
| 	cipality thereof, nor shall it apply  to  a  resident  of  New
| 	Jersy holding a	valid radio amateur license of the Technician,
| 	General, Advanced, or Amateur Extra Class."
+---------------

And what about NON-residents of New Jersey who are hams...? or just
people driving through...? And non-ham residents, will they all march up
and register like good little boys and girls? And what are the possible
grounds for denying an applications for such a permit? ("No! You disagreed
with me in town meeting last week!", or, "You haven't lived here 10 years.")
Or will there be surprise raids of suspicious-looking antennas? Or of
anyone who receives out-of-state mail from an electronics store?

Not to carry the extrapolation too far towards paranoia, folks, but I think
once again our general civil liberties are being restricted on the (unproven)
THEORY that such punishments deter criminals. Friends, I am not sure exactly
what a "fourth-degree misdemeanor" is (not being a NJ resident), but it's surely
inconsequential compared to the felonies such radios are being used for. Maybe
more deterrence could be gained by making ANY use of a radio in committing a
crime a "special circumstance" or something (as use of a gun is in California),
that increases the penalties on conviction. Note: This does NOT make such use
itself a crime (which could open up a whole host of other civil liberties
problems), but merely adds "oomph" to a conviction.

IF (and this is a big "if", I'd want to see some documentation first) the use
of scanners (receivers) IS a MAJOR crime problem in New Jersey, the much better
solution would be encryption of critical services' transmissions, or conversion
to digital transmission (possibly with voice compression and coding redundancy
to actually improve S/N in marginal areas). (Plus such a "special circ." law.)

---

Not normally politically inclined, but suddenly worried by this new bit of
legislative not-so-trivia, I remain (not a ham),

Rob Warnock
Systems Architecture Consultant

UUCP:	{ihnp4,ucbvax!dual}!fortune!redwood!rpw3
DDD:	(415)572-2607
USPS:	510 Trinidad Lane, Foster City, CA  94404