While I haven’t researched the issue, it is a fascinating question. First, the suspect users either are or are not licensed hams. . . . “supposedly licensed amateurs” doesn’t cut it. How do they not know if they are licensed unless they believe they are bootlegging someone else’s’ call sign. If they are using the system without callsigns they need to be stopped even if they hold a license. Easy enough to verify with a little snooping to figure out who owns the call or whether their used call is made up. We have seen that before. Next, facilitate means just that. But it implies knowledge of the use or demonstrated intent I would think. “training exercises” are certainly not illegal in most states and therefore may not be illegal use of radio per se. Some states have anti-paramilitary training laws, whether unconstitutional or not. Do they boast they are going to overthrow the government or something illegal overtly? If so, maybe a problem. If not, then the trustee of the club, guided by the club management with powers defined by the club’s formation documents as to rights to make rules for use can decide to exclude them or not as provided by §97.205 Repeater station. (e) . . . Limiting the use of a repeater to only certain user stations is permissible. In any event, the answer to your question demonstrates why lawyers were invented. Prosecution would argue the club or at least the trustee knew or really should have known of the activity going on. Weak argument without more specific facts demonstrating actual knowledge and tacit approval. Defense would argue that the use of the repeater itself did not suggest violations as no clear evidence of illegal activities were manifested. The trustee also has some isolation through (g) The control operator of a repeater that retransmits inadvertently communications that violate the rules in this part is not accountable for the violative communications. But it may be argued it does not apply here. When I have been involved in limiting stations from use of a repeater for what we determined was good cause, the actions sometimes resulted in ugly jammers appearing to “punish” us, and even threats of physical injury at least once. One must consider unintended consequences of any position. This is just my initial, off-the-cuff response. Somebody might point out the errors of my thinking here. My 2 cents worth. Bob Famiglio, K3RF Vice Director - ARRL Atlantic Division 610-359-7300 www.QRZ.com/db/K3RF From: arrl-odv On Behalf Of Michael Ritz Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 11:48 AM To: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:31835] Use of amateur repeaters by militia groups One for the ARRL Board legal scholars: I have a situation and debate going on in Idaho at the moment. A known militia group (Ammon's Army, the armed group led by Ammon Bundy that took over the Malheur wildlife refuge in Oregon a few years ago), has apparently been using a repeater that belongs to the Voice of Idaho radio club for "training exercises". These are supposedly licensed amateurs, and I have not idea what "training" means. The club has been closely monitoring their repeaters, and it appears on the surface that what the group is doing does not break any FCC rules. The question came us as to what the legal definition of the word "facilitate" in the FCC rules really means. If a group uses a club's repeater to "train", then in the end commits a crime as a result of that training, are the club and it's members legally liable as the "facilitator" of the training ? 73; Mike W7VO
