Thanks for your support!
FWIW, I may look at safety a bit closer than others. I spent years working
as a construction electrician. Part of our training was taking OSHA 10 and
OSHA 30 classes. Trust me, once OSHA presents their very graphic videos to
you, you will never again look at 'accidents' the same.
I also may have a more cautious take on being sued. At least once a month
in martial arts class we are instructed on how to not get sued for
protecting ourselves. We are told that pretty much, if you are an adult
martial artist and you kick the snot out of someone that has attacked you,
you WILL go to court and have to defend your actions. So, today, if you are
attacked you may have to defend yourself twice. Once on the street and then
again in court.
Was it like that 37 years ago when I first walked into a karate dojo? Not
even close. We did get instruction on legal issues, but it was mostly on
issues like excessive force. And it wasn't dwelled upon all that much. In
Tae Kwon Do, I don't even remember the subject being brought up.
I also had the good fortune over the years to work with engineers of all
sorts. The first time I saw the robot climb the pole all I could think of
was 'what could possibly go wrong?' and who was going to get smacked when
the thing let loose of it's hold.
Has anyone bothered to take a look at weapons laws in Michigan? Did you
know that slingshots are illegal in Michigan? Yes, even the kind we use for
putting up antennas. There are no exceptions, ALL slingshots are illegal in
Here is the law:
750.224 Weapons; manufacture, sale, or possession as felony; violation as
felony; penalty; exceptions; "muffler" or "silencer" defined.
(1) A person shall not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, or possess any of
(a) A machine gun or firearm that shoots or is designed to shoot
automatically more than 1 shot without manual reloading, by a single
function of the trigger.
(b) A muffler or silencer.
(c) A bomb or bombshell.
(d) A blackjack, slungshot, billy, metallic knuckles, sand club, sand bag,
(e) A device, weapon, cartridge, container, or contrivance designed to
render a person temporarily or permanently disabled by the ejection,
release, or emission of a gas or other substance.
(2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony, punishable
by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or a fine of not more than
$2,500.00, or both.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:
(a) A self-defense spray or foam device as defined in section 224d.
(b) A person manufacturing firearms, explosives, or munitions of war by
virtue of a contract with a department of the government of the United
(c) A person licensed by the secretary of the treasury of the United States
or the secretary's delegate to manufacture, sell, or possess a machine gun,
or a device, weapon, cartridge, container, or contrivance described in
(4) As used in this chapter, "muffler" or "silencer" means 1 or more of the
(a) A device for muffling, silencing, or deadening the report of a firearm.
(b) A combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in
assembling or fabricating a muffler or silencer.
(c) A part, designed or redesigned, and intended only for use in assembling
or fabricating a muffler or silencer.
History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.224 ;-- Am.
1959, Act 175, Eff. Mar. 19, 1960 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 564, Imd. Eff. Dec. 29,
1978 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 346, Eff. Mar. 31, 1981 ;-- Am. 1990, Act 321, Eff.
Mar. 28, 1991 ;-- Am. 1991, Act 33, Imd. Eff. June 10, 1991 ;-- Am. 2006,
Act 401, Eff. Dec. 28, 2006
Constitutionality: The Michigan supreme court held that the statute was not
unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant in People v Lynch, 410
Mich 343; 301 NW2d 796 (1981).
Former Law: See section 3 of Act 372 of 1927, being CL 1929, § 16751; and
Act 206 of 1929.
(c) 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
Now, it may be argued that the actual word is 'slungshot' which of course is
a typo. Nonetheless, there is no exception for using any of the above to
put up antennas.
Notice that 'nunchucks' aren't part of the list? Many people think they are
illegal to possess, which they are not here in Michigan. Only four states
have laws against them.
I really like all the hams I know and that are part of this forum. I don't
want any of them to get sued and I surely don't want any of them to get
If a retired lawyer is giving you advice, I would strongly consider taking
it. I am sure he has the same goal in mind as I did when I made the
original post, that goal being keeping people from getting sued or injured.
We want ham radio to bring us fun and happiness, not stress and injury.
]On Behalf Of Richards
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WestMichiganHams] Re: Emergency Antenna Platform System
On 7/19/2013 11:21 AM, n8xxham wrote:
> In case of emergency, I've found it best to do what is needed first, and
beg for forgiveness later if someone "second guesses" one's actions.
That is a risky plan in a highly litigious society.
"probably" the trustee of the club station involve sought written
permission for the demo.
I agree. Mark's point applies in case of an
actual emergency deployment where advance
arrangements and permission unlikely.
> But, if I were in a situation where all the power was down, I had one of
the robotic pole climbers and other stuff for a needed antenna for my
repeater and/or a HF wire, I'd "just do it".
Understood. And most often you will be OK for
acting first and asking questions later - but
not always. I think it wise to consider the
issues raised by Mark's post and be very careful
so as to minimize risk and potential liability.
In an emergency, one does what one must, but one
must be very careful to avoid liability even in
> One can be hemmed in by fear of whatever "might happen" to such a point
which nothing can be done.
Yes. But acting without regard to an obvious
and known risk may be foolish. One must carefully
balance the need to provide emergency communications
against the need to avoid doing so in a dangerous
manner. Mark is wise to identify dangerous and
risky aspects of this sort of operation. One cannot
always avoid the risk of loss and liability to
others simply by acting in good faith and pointing
to the emergency nature of the operation.
As with so many things, one will be judged on
the reasonableness of his actions, and the
extent of emergency will be but one factor in
the assessment of what is reasonable under the
I may disagree with Mark on the extent of
exposure to liability... but I strongly agree on
the need for a careful assessment of the risk
of loss and extent of liability in such cases.
He raises a very important question that would
apply to any similar operation. You may not
be able to escape liability for a mishap by
saying you were acting in good faith during
Just MY take.
===================== K8JHR ========================
Yahoo! Groups Links