Militia Radio Frequencies
radiofreeq.wordpress.comThese photos remind me of William Gibson's observations on tactical fashion -- if you are really a militant, then the last thing you'd want to do is look all tactical and stuff. The Army surplus look, radios with whip antennae, etc., is fun. But in any scenario where militia were up against organized force, I would think they should try to blend into the population. But I guess it's hard to keep morale up if you just go to meetings where you practice blending into population. Like, an organized concealed carry sit-in at Starbucks where you don't tell anyone you're carrying and try not to be noticed? Or, have radio conversations where you discuss nothing of substance and avoid transmitting any coded messages?
> These photos remind me of William Gibson's observations on tactical fashion -- if you are really a militant, then the last thing you'd want to do is look all tactical and stuff.
Hear. Hear. The AR-15 segment of gun culture is essentially cosplay. For example, the AR-15 is impractical gun for both home defense (Too long to for hallways. Too powerful for drywall.) and actually illegal to hunt with because the bullets are literally too small to bring down game.[1] However, you look like a fucking action movie star. Tactical vests, "every day carry" trauma kits, throat mics, body armor, etc. There's no practical reason for any of these, other than the owner wants to play dress up. Businesses know this. Why else would say armor manufacturer AR5000 unveil a Boba Fett helmet[2].
[1] http://www.fieldandstream.com/forums/campfire/are-assault-ri... [2] http://io9.gizmodo.com/check-out-this-boba-fett-inspired-tac...
> the AR-15 is impractical gun for both home defense (Too long to for hallways. Too powerful for drywall.)
1. Actually, the .223/5.56mm round has less penetration in residential[1] that most handgun rounds due to its tumbling characteristics.
2. I'd say the AR-15 is impractical for home defense due to its stigma of being an evil black rifle, and that it seems like "overkill" to uneducated people. That's a shame, due to point #1, that it has less drywall/wood penetration than most handgun rounds.
The AR-15 is a pretty useful and relatively economical system, due to its modularity. That said, I agree with a lot of your other opinions regarding elements of the gun/tacticool culture.
[1.] In the drywall/stick-built US, anyway.
I started to look for sources to refute claim #1, but found several firearms manufacturers' websites that affirmed it. I was pretty shocked.
I would still encourage use of a shotgun loaded with buckshot for home defense, since that same search engine query returned many results of state and federal cases where houses football fields away were penetrated by stray .223 rounds. Buckshot won't have the range to maim or kill compared to the NATO 5.56 round.
> I would still encourage use of a shotgun loaded with buckshot for home defense
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but one thing I've heard from "gun enthusiast" family members is that this is fine if you're imagining an "ideal scenario" of being barricaded in your room waiting for the cops to show up, but it's worth considering what can go wrong - compared to a shotgun, an AR is much easier to operate with one arm (if you just woke up and one is asleep, or you were involved in a struggle that disabled one, or whatever); much less recoil (could be an issue if smaller family members need to use it); faster rate of fire and more rounds available before reloading (in case you miss or there are multiple attackers).
This isn't to confirm or refute your information, but rather some points:
- Houses that were penetrated by stray .223 rounds from football fields (aka multiple hundreds of meters) away probably weren't rounds shot through drywall. Maybe from outdoors, or through a window, who knows.
- .223 rounds that encounter no obstacles in flight have a flat trajectory of about 200 meters (2 football fields). .223 rounds that penetrate any substance of sufficient density have their flight path altered.
- In my limited experience with buckshot (none with residential materials), it's probably going to have a relatively flat trajectory, even through drywall. Something to especially consider if you have other people in your home.
My impression from what I'd read is that nearly anything that's got enough impact energy to penetrate clothing, soft flesh (denim & ballistic gel) and the hard bits of thorax, is going to get through perpendicular drywall very easily.
Here's the lightest round in common use, 22LR, holing 8 layers of drywall sequentially. This is 1/12th as much muzzle energy as .223:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ME3IEYoQXc
Here's pricy specialty frangible rounds designed not to go through walls... still going through walls in a test:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/09/daniel-zimmerman/sh...
>Here's the lightest round in common use, 22LR, holing 8 layers of drywall sequentially. This is 1/12th as much muzzle energy as .223:
22LR doesn't tumble.
>Here's pricy specialty frangible rounds designed not to go through walls... still going through walls in a test:
Frangible rounds are usually used so it doesn't ricochet and hurt someone. It just becomes dust when it hits something hard that would normally bounce a bullet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qgQoej5zE
Here's a 223 round going through 10 layers of drywall, a pine 2x4, and six inches of ballistic gelatin afterwards. While tumbling, I'm sure.
Mind explaining what you mean by tumbling characteristics?
When a long spitzer (pointed) bullet like those used for .223/5.56 NATO rounds changes media, they start doing a 180, that is, tumble, so that the denser rear is in the direction of travel.
When a 5.56mm round strikes a solid object, it tumbles (aka "yaws", or rapidly changes orientation).
Contrary to popular legend, it does not tumble in flight.
I agree with almost everything you've said here with the one exception being that an AR-15 is actually an excellent home defense weapon.
Drywall penetration depends on which tests you're looking at but generally speaking it penetrates walls less than or at least not more than any standard pistol or shotgun round and its more likely to fragment on impact.
As a sibling pointed out, the overall length of an AR is actually less than that of the commonly recommended shotgun, making it easier to handle in tight hallways. (Though its arguable that you shouldn't be doing much moving at all in such a scenario).
I would also add that the recoil on an AR-15 is vastly more manageable than a pistol or shotgun making you less likely to hit things you don't intend.
I'm in 100% agreement with the other stuff however. The "tacticool" segment of the market is basically adult dress-up.
Impractical for home defense? That statement is a bit broad. It all depends on your home and you. Are you in an apartment in the city or multiple acres in the middle of nowhere? For some, home defense might start with the unknown drunk guy driving his ATV in a circle on the driveway while yelling crazy things. Home defense isn't always a bump in the night inside your house.
I won't tell anyone they shouldn't use a handgun or shotgun or AR-15 for their defense - they all have their place, but I know which one I wouldn't want my wife to have if I were the bad guy. It has something to do with being light weight, very low recoil, fast follow up, multiple rounds and the way the steel silhouette made a "ding" each time she pulled the trigger.
The AR-15 is almost certainly the most-used gun (not a majority, just more used than any other model of gun) for hunting in the US, though it's more common for varminting than for medium-large game. Hunting e.g. whitetail deer with .223 is fine even, though you're somewhat restricted in shots you can take for a humane kill vs. other calibers.
Also, it's a perfectly reasonable gun for home defense - compared to e.g. a 12 gauge shotgun which is commonly recommended, a typical AR-15 length (with extendable stock extended) might be around 37", whereas a typical 12 gauge shotgun even of the tactical variety (I.E. with an 18" barrel instead of a 24 or 28" hunting barrel) would be at least that long, but usually a bit longer. #00 buckshot has about the same drywall penetration as .223 FMJ, but using JHP (preferable anyway for defensive purposes) instead significantly reduces that.
It is not illegal to hunt small game with an AR-15. Many people on Texas ranchland use ARs and similar rifles for pest management.
ARs are a very reasonable general purpose rifle. Medium size rounds, cheap parts, lots of flexibility, highly standardized, easy to maintain.
It's also disingenuous to ignore recreational shooting. Hunting and home defense are not the only uses for firearms.
In the case of militiamen, it's also a perfectly good combat rifle. The US military has been using it since Vietnam with mostly success (excepting a few early issues).
re: Throat mic, they have their use! Specifically, being able to properly do the "Ah-ah" in "Da da da": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtMThVUpc-U
The AR-15 segment of gun culture is essentially cosplay. For example, the AR-15 is impractical gun for both home defense (Too long to for hallways.
All those who advise and use shotguns disagree, and a short carbine is certainly more manageable than a 20ga or greater shotgun. And they're certainly easier to aim under stress than a handgun, and ideal for bunker tactical situations (e.g. you stay in your bedroom waiting for the police to arrive, too bad for the intruder if he tries to break into that room ignoring your warnings).
Too powerful for drywall.)
I'm told this is most certainly not the case, or, rather, handgun bullets and heavy shot loads penetrate a lot more. I don't know because I prefer a 1911 for inside the home self defense, but I would most certainly use a rifle outside the home if opportunity allowed. Plenty of people have used AR-15 pattern rifles in self-defense, inside and outside the home.
and actually illegal to hunt with because the bullets are literally too small to bring down game.
They're fine for anything hog sized or below, and as far as I know legal in those domains. With the right modern bullet selection would be OK for white tail deer and I believe legal in some states (but I hope not for bigger game), but the laws from before the revolution in hunting bullets obviously weren't written with those in mind. I mean, it was derived from this successful varmint round: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.222_Remington
ADDED: So, given all the real civilian world civilian utility they have, for a lot of men you could view them as modern versions of accessorizing a car.
> Plenty of people have used AR-15 pattern rifles in self-defense, inside and outside the home.
Genuinely curious: when have people used an AR-15 rifle outside for self-defense?
Against zombies
Maybe by virtue of being on drugs, but it's a real thing, try for example: https://www.google.com/search?q=ar+15+used+in+self+defense or substitute home for self.
With the exception of the LA riots, every result I'm finding talks about home defense.
It's an inherently difficult thing to search for. "AR-15" is a registered trademark of Colt, but it's been a while since they made the majority of civilian AR-15 pattern rifles (for that matter they lost the M16 contract to FN years ago, and now aren't the exclusive M4 carbine manufacturer).
You might have better luck substituting "assault rifle" or maybe "assault weapon".
I can remember reading at least one, I think two cases with AR-15 pattern rifles being used outside the home, a few more if you extend this to general civilian versions of assault rifles, like in the LA riots.
An AR-10 (7.62) would be an excellent hunting rifle. It would be quicker and easier to take follow on shots if you miss or only wound the animal.
LA riots
The data you seek on penetration is on The Box of Truth. I am on a phone or I would link directly to it, but here is the website.
Thanks, although it's not data I seek.
Handguns have a lot of advantages in home defense, such as maneuverability and much better retention if things get up close and personal (the lever arm of a long gun is necessarily much longer, an adversary can grab it outside of your grasp and twist it out of your hands, as I demonstrated to my stronger and fitter nephew before he went to college, a bit to his surprise).
A handgun is surprisingly difficult to shoot accurately past 7 meters in a life or death situation. Look at all of the stories of police shooting up to one hundred rounds at a suspect and still missing them.
Police aren't a good example for talking about civilian handgun marksmanship:
They are under an obligation to use their guns in many situations a civilian wouldn't, or could trivially avoid (either by not being in that sort of place, or safely retreating).
Few get much training or practice, and this is particular true for ant-gun Blue cities, with NYC being the extreme case of having extinguished its gun culture and the force being run by hoplophobes at critical times (details on request, but that includes police who care about marksmanship having a difficult time practicing on their own).
They simply don't pay any serious penalty beyond maybe their city paying a civil settlement for such examples, usually of contagious fire, which also simply can't be a problem in the usual civilian self-defense case where only one good guy has a gun. If we civilians were to pull those sort of stunts, we'd rightfully end up in prison.
They seem to be more prone to completely lose their shit like with Chris Dorner, which caused one of those cases against two total innocents in a pickup truck that bore little resemblance to Dorner's, except it being a pickup truck. And, again in a Blue part of the country.
7 meters is way too long as a general metric for this domain, as of ... the '70s or '80s the average distance for police use of handguns was 7 feet. 7 meters is 23 feet, which is close to the Tueller Drill 21 feet metric, and is a distance you'll find in home defense, but it still generally works out for civilians defending themselves in their homes. And weapons retention doesn't become an issue until an adversary closes the distance, which per the Tueller drill gives you an opportunity to fire a shot or three if you've already got your gun out and pointed.
I agree with you about the example of police. I was just pointing out that under stress it is difficult to shoot accurately. I won't talk trash about the police because I don't know enough police to talk it. However, in the military I have seen how hard it is to move, shoot, and hit your target. And we get tons of training.
I can't really tell from your reply if your are arguing for pistols or rifles being better. I think it comes down to using whatever you are good at. If you train with a rifle then use a rifle if you use a pistol use a pistol. I actually think retaining a rifle is easier then a pistol. Maybe because I train that way. For the pistol I mostly just keep the pistol away from the bad guy. If the bad guy can get his hands on the pistol he would have more leverage then if he got his hands on my rifle.
Back to the original argument. For the militia type individuals that like to play like they are in the military. It is all fun and games until you get shot at.
> But in any scenario where militia were up against organized force, I would think they should try to blend into the population.
It's very effective indeed, if you disregard all problems with international law and basic human morals. It's a tactic that have been very successful for Hamas in recent years, for example. Fighting in civilian clothing means that (1) your adversaries will kill much more civilians, honestly mistaking them for you and (2) all your losses can be easily counted as "civilians" by even slightly biased observers. Next step in effectivety is just keeping a couple of children around you in a firefight.
Idealist militants, on the other hand, who are concerned with well-being of civilians they are fighting against always assume some form of uniform, because among other things, it helps to keep at least some rules of engagement in place and protect innocents to some extent.
Hence the orange jumpsuits of the Rebel Alliance.
A quote comes to mind - "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." or in more polite terms - "One man's hero is another man's villain."
In war, what is right, or what is wrong on a decision by decision question, is often overshadowed by the meta moral questions of the broader context.
"International law" is one of the things that people like that really hate, c.f. all those people getting mad about "agenda 21".
> Idealist militants, on the other hand, who are concerned with well-being of civilians they are fighting
Going beyond the contradiction in that sentence, there appear to be a lot of quite diverse people in some of these groups, some of whom might care deeply about the well-being of others, and others who are simply spoiling for a fight. Some people in this latest event in Oregon were very much focused on intimidating locals who happened to work for the federal government in some capacity, or who happened to be on the 'wrong side'.
The right-wing militias ideologically lay claim to themselves as the successors of 18th century militias. In actuality, these militias were basically auxiliary military units set up at local levels to deal with low-level threats that required fast response--slave revolts and Indian raids being the main ones present. These sorts of threats have all but disappeared in the First World, so their modern counterparts (National Guard or Gendarme) end up doing very little.
The self-titled militia organizations, however, use a warped view of history that glorifies their role in the American Revolution, seeing themselves as the necessary vanguard against government oppression and particularly the potential oppressive nature of a standing army, which usually turns out to mean "I want to use this land that no one's using but the evil government won't let me."
To lend credence to their claims, they need to look the part of a militia--the part of a well-armed, well-trained soldier, while their ideology precludes them from gaining experience in an actual properly-trained military environment (it seems to me that there are very few ex-military in these militia groups, and most current and ex-military are as disdainful of these groups as the general populace). I rather suspect that even if they did end up fighting the US Army, they'd still do it in their uniforms because a) they'd be clearly recognizable as heroes then and b) they think they'd still win anyways.
>The self-titled militia organizations, however, use a warped view of history that glorifies their role in the American Revolution
As a proponent of non-violence I have no real support for such activities but after having read much of the constitutional debates I feel compelled to point out the fact that a civilian militia as a check/balance on government power as well as for auxiliary military purposes was a very considerable topic of discussion in the constitutional debates of the founding fathers:
>No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valor. But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence,--yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed,--what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies! An instance within the memory of some of this house will show us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia. If they neglect to arm them, and prescribe proper discipline, they will be of no use.
-George Mason, "The Father of the Bill of Rights", Debate in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_8...
However, others such as Alexander Hamilton noted the logistical difficulties of sustaining such a militia:
>A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, 1788
This is a naive and over-optimistic post. You're allowing the horns-effect bias to overcome your rationality.
The world we live in is big, and there are a lot of different people in it. Some of them are smart, and some of them are stupid. Some of them are leftists, some of them are rightists.
There is no law of the universe that precludes smart people from believing in ideologies or causes that you personally dismiss. There are, undoubtedly, militant right-wing militia members who have a very strong grasp of military strategy, insurgency strategy, insurgent tactics, and are planning to use these to fight their enemies.
By their very nature, you will not know about these people. They will not occupy a federal office in a dramatic attempt to coerce the state into doing what they want it to do. They will be completely invisible until they decide to act, and when they do, it might not even be clear that they are acting if they don't want that.
Intelligent people who are happy and healthy and well-fed rarely turn to these sorts of things, but the world is changing rapidly, and there are no guarantees what the future will bring. Further, since the Internet is essentially causing massive global-scale group polarization, it might be much more likely for an intelligent person who might otherwise hold moderate beliefs to be radicalized. It can happen, and because it has billions of chances to, it almost certainly will.
> the world is changing rapidly, and there are no guarantees what the future will bring.
I guess that's been true for centuries, but I don't see what it has to do with militias. Like everyone with a bad idea, they want to say 'this time it's different'.
> There is no law of the universe that precludes smart people from believing in ideologies or causes that you personally dismiss.
Perhaps not a law of the universe, but it's not just personal subjectivity. I personally dismiss that the world is flat, and I'm confident smart people widely agree with me for a good reason.
>I guess that's been true for centuries, but I don't see what it has to do with militias. Like everyone with a bad idea, they want to say 'this time it's different'.
Well, automation is going to start taking away knowledge worker jobs soon, so many intelligent people might find themselves in rather dire circumstances.
It's certainly unfair to compare rightism to flat-earthism. If you can't admit that there are people as smart or smarter than you who have opposite political views, you're hopelessly blinded by partisanship.
> It's certainly unfair to compare rightism to flat-earthism
I didn't; I was talking about fringe movements planning for the collapse of civilization. They certainly do not represent the right wing.
By definition no extremist represents the center or the average of their political ideology. But extremists exist and occasionally are very intelligent.
> Or, have radio conversations where you discuss nothing of substance and avoid transmitting any coded messages
This is a requirement for operating an amateur radio in most jusisdictions. Ham radio is the concealed-carry of communications technology.
Interesting read, but it almost paints anyone who owns a Baofeng as a terrorist. It does do a great job of showing how lame it is to think that those radios will help in a standoff like that. If the government was going to go in, you can bet the first thing they'd do is jam those cheap radios.
For anyone interested in ham radio, there isn't a better place to start. Without these cheap, not-as-good-as-something-that-costs-10x-as much radios you can get into the hobby for under $50 including your license. I'd spend a tad bit more and go for the UV-82hp and a new antenna, but $75 to get going isn't bad. Without these I don't think there would be many younger people getting started. In my area there is a very active repeater of normal people (many of them software guys, so maybe not all that normal) chatting about all kinds of topics and there is always someone to answer a question.
Passing the test isn't bad - checkout the mobile friendly http://www.hamstudy.org (no, affiliated, just a happy user).
In my opinion the Baofeng isn't a very good radio (poor build quality, poor performing RF deck, bad documentation and software support), and there are better inexpensive options out there - most surplus commercial radio gear is around the same price with a better build quality - and for those with some money to spend, you can pick up surplus XTS3000 with DES-XL (or DES-OFB) for under 250 bucks ea, add another 3-800 for a KVL and you have a somewhat hard to crack Digital (P25) encrypted radio system.
The Motorola iDEN handset DirecTalk feature is also a great option for comms up to about a mile, no encryption, so its more of a security thru obscurity system (same with the Motorola DTR series of radios, which are conceptually identical to the iDEN handset feature - down to power output even - I think the difference is message format and codec IMBE vs VSLEP or AMBE), because of the nature of the beast unless you know its DirecTalk, its unlikely you would be able to figure out and find it either.
I've long used surplus Motorola or Kenwood gear in my car and for handhelds - GP300's, XTS's, Spectra (for the car) and before that a Syntor X (which had one of the hottest receivers I've ever seen in a mobile) - I myself have been licensed since 1996.
>In my opinion the Baofeng isn't a very good radio
oh yes, it's quite terrible. I helped my friend pick up a mobile radio from HRO and made him hit our repeater, but I couldn't pick up the transmission from the repeater for some reason. as you know, the TX frequency of the repeater is 0.6MHz away from the RX frequency. It turns out my crappy baofeng was being overloaded by the 5W transmit power my friend was blasting.
I've tried using commercial radios before, but the biggest annoyance is the difficulty in either 1) getting programming software and 2) actually using the software, which usually has an atrocious UI.
At least with a purpose-built ham radio you can enter frequencies directly on the handset, even if it's a pain. Although the programming software for them is almost as bad.
I heard bad things about programming the Baofeng and other cheap radios so picked one up before getting blessed by the FCC to operate it. I figured if it was a pain I didn't care about passing some test.
It was a pretty straight forward process. I bought a decent cable to plug it in to my laptop, downloaded CHIRP (http://chirp.danplanet.com/projects/chirp/wiki/Home) and used it to pull in a list of local repeaters, selected the ones I wanted and dumped the list to the radio.
There was one issue of confusion, maybe this will help someone. The order is important. I've never failed if I: 0) Remove the antenna 1) Plug in the cable to the computer 2) Plug in the cable to the radio 3) Turn the radio on - all the way, full volume Then CHIRP will happily download or upload profiles from the radio.
The UV-82 manual is decent. I'm guessing it is the older models that people talk about. There are some funny translations here and there, but I don't recall anything that didn't work or make sense. Programming them by hand is still no fun. Thank you everyone who works on CHIRP!
"most surplus commercial radio gear is around the same price with a better build quality"
As someone considering getting into this, can you make a couple of suggestions of surplus commercial gear in this price range (ie, under $75)? TIA
What band do you want (VHF, UHF, etc)?
Do you need a radio that can be legally transmit on MURS or Part 90 frequencies (land mobile) or just ham radio?
Do you want a handheld or mobile?
Do you object to hardware that uses DOS (preferably running either on a real older laptop/desktop, or perhaps slowed down in DOSBox to program) or needs funky interface cables?
Do you object to something that must be programmed with a computer, and cannot be programmed by front panel inputs?
- 2m/70cm seems best to start (?) - Not business oriented, just ham. - mobile or handheld, though mobile in the sense of base station, not for in truck use. - no serious objection to odd cables or dos as long as parts/software is not so obscure as to be frustrating to find or use - would like to retain front panel option
Thanks again
If you just want a straight ham radio, I'd recommend a Yeasu FT-60R (~100 on ebay), having owned one, I find the build quality much better, I suspect it also performs better when it comes to adjacent channel interference, intermod, and desense too - for a mobile, a Kenwood TM-281A (~120 on ebay) - which is a 2m only radio, but one of the best (and easiest) I've used.
For Commercial options (you generally loose the front panel programability) so long as you only need the ham bands - Motorola HT1000 (~20 on ebay) (available in VHF and UHF) or for a mobile (could be used as a base or in a truck) a Motorola Spectra (~40-150 on ebay) or GM300 (~50-100 on ebay) - as a note, when buying the commercial radios on ebay, you have to pay careful attention to the bandsplit of UHF radios, many of them are 450-482, rather than the 403-450 we'd want for ham radio.
The thing is, as a radio, the Chinese units are not horrible, they're a world away better than what anyone was using 25 years ago - but they're essentially disposable radios, one drop - and you're probably buying a new one - to give you an example, I own a portion radio fleet that a group of us use for low cost rentals to non-profits, its mostly Motorola, but the Motorola hardware is expensive, so we were looking for a low cost analog only option, and we bought 10 woxun handhelds for our rental fleet, they made it three rental cycles (about 18 months) before all but 2 were dead - in that same period, we had no failures in the Motorola and Kenwood portions of our fleet.
These experiences perhaps color my judgement a bit about the baofengs, woxuns and the like.
I'm not involved in any armed popular uprising, but I do sometimes go on mountain hikes, would these fit the bill there? Like when the group separates and you try to stay in contact over a few kilometers (no line-of-sight). We had some cheap radios along a few years ago, no idea what kind of technology, but the reception was useless.
Everyone needs to be ham licensed, and you would probably want to identify a mountain repeater you could use. Given those two things, sure!
It's not entirely clear to me that such radios require a ham license (see discussion below). I'm not in the US, anyway, so it doesn't really matter to me. But since I have no idea what a mountain repeater is, these kinds of radios might not be suitable to novices.
Not to mention it is a very popular line with volunteer fire depts and rescue squads. Mostly because they can hand them out cheaply and no one cares if the equipment is damaged.
> MURS is the longest range VHF radio service that can be legally utilized by anyone without the need for a radio license.
The operator does not need a license, but I believe that the radio must be certified for MURS operation. The Baofeng UV-5R is not [1]. It is certified under Part 90. MURS requires certification under Part 95.
[1] http://www.gordonwestradioschool.com/attachments/FCC_Part_90...
In addition, GMRS requires an FCC license.[1] Just because the Baofeng allows you to access the frequencies doesn't mean that you can legally transmit on them. I wonder if this is their Capone-tax-evasion-style Achilles' heel. Enforce those FCC regs! :P
[1]: https://www.fcc.gov/general/general-mobile-radio-service-gmr...
FCC violations are generally fines instead of prison time. It'd be somewhat effective but not nearly as powerful as the tax evasion charges.
People have been jailed for violating the ham radio rules.
Any sources? The crazy 14.313 guys just got fined a buttload but not jailed, IIRC.
And that was after a warning (14.313 is a wonderful search term): http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-fines-pennsylvania-ham-11-500-f...
Searching on the term linear amplifier, this was the only example of jail time I was able to find, and that after many previous enforcement actions including revoking his license 20 years earlier: http://www.eham.net/articles/1744
To my knowledge you are correct. Although I kind of hope the rules get reworked a little. As a public service volunteer, it would be beneficial to be able to operate on many services with one radio, and many modern radios are capable of being "good citizens" on multiple services simultaneously.
(For example, we operate on Part 90, but may interact with members of the public who are carrying a Part 95 radio. Luckily as a ham, I believe I can at least operate my Part 90 radio on Part 97 bands.)
> Luckily as a ham, I believe I can at least operate my Part 90 radio on Part 97 bands.
I believe that is correct (also a ham).
For curious non-hams, here is how it works. In the US, generally there are three ways radio bands are licensed.
1. No license is required for the operator to use the band, but the equipment used must be certified for operation in that band.
2. The operator has to have a license to use the band and the equipment must be certified for operation in that band.
3. The operator has to have a license to use the band, but can use any equipment as long as what is actually transmitted meets the legal technical requirements for operation on that band (power levels, modulation types, and so on).
An example of the first method is the Family Radio Service (FRS) bands.
An example of the second method is the General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS). When I say that the operator has to have a license, that does not necessarily mean that the person actually operating the radio has to have a license. With GMRS, for instance, a business can get a license and that covers employee use without the individual employees needing to get licenses.
Ham radio falls under the third method, and offhand I can't think of anything else that does. When a licensed ham is operating a radio all the FCC cares about is what comes out of the antenna, not what equipment produced it.
The way hams get licensed is also quite different. The FCC takes a very hands off approach to ham licensing.
To get a ham license, you have to pass an exam. For the entry level license, that is a 35 question multiple-choice exam that almost anyone here on HN could learn enough to pass in a couple weekends. There is a license level above that which gives you access to more ham bands, which you get by passing another 35 question exam which is a little harder. There is a third license level above that which allows you full access to everything hams are allowed to do. That one is a 50 question exam and is quite a bit harder than the other two.
The FCC neither makes the exams nor administers them. They have authorized 14 organizations as "Volunteer Exam Coordinators" (VECs), and the VECs are responsible for maintaining the pool of exam questions, constructing exams from the question pool, training and certifying people to give the exams, giving the exams, grading them, and reporting the results back to the FCC so the FCC can issue the licenses.
Thats when you end up getting a used Motorola radio as your primary carry... you can't get FRS, but you can at least do GMRS and 70cm... if you do VHF you can do 2m and likely any SAR pairs. -- 73s.
It seems like FCC-regulatory compliance would not be a top priority for people who believe that the federal government has no authority....
One more thing that the average hacker should know about radio regulation:
You can homebrew a radio yourself and it doesn't need FCC approval if you're a ham operating on ham bands with all the appropriate standards.
You are however not allowed to sell radios at a commercial scale unless it's FCC approved, even if it's for hams. But I think (IANAL) you're allowed to sell homebrew gear in like garage sale-type deals.
So long as you're fitting within the spectral emissions and power limits expected by the FCC - its highly unlikely that anyone would notice, or much less bother to enforce the rules.
I've been following the latest standoff pretty closely, as it's only a couple of hours east of Bend. It's pretty interesting to see the different subsets of people involved, including the lot this article kind of touches on, who seem to like to play "army guys". Scary, too.
I like the quote at the end:
“Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about.” -Mark Twain
> (obscured by the upper receiver of the assault weapon)
You mean the stock of the semi-automatic rifle which happens to be scary and black?
Assault weapon is colloquially defined as a firearm with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip. I've seen this definition in common use going back 30 years, whether or not it helps anyone's political ideals.
A thorough discussion of the definition and it's history can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
>Assault weapon is colloquially defined as a firearm with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip.
Rifle. Not firearm. Otherwise every pistol that isn't a muzzle/breech loader or revolver is an 'assault weapon', which is makes the distinction even more functionally useless.
A rifle is a firearm.
So is a Glock pistol, which obviously isn't supposed to fall into the 'assault weapons' category that has been constructed.
But since the construction is entirely political, they actually have fallen in the category, since the majority of them have a standard magazine capacity > 10 rounds, or simply detachable magazines.
Maybe not legally in any part of the US unless Glock sells models with threaded barrels (vs. their factory aftermarket ones), but I don't doubt rhetorically.
Isn't a handgun just a gun made to make assaulting another human easier?
Not at all. They're akin to a first aid kit, not what you'd choose to have if you know you're going into combat, but something you can much more often have with you because of their compactness and much lighter weight. More than 10 million Americans have concealed carry licenses, with their numbers growing by more than a million a year, and we demonstrably aren't carrying them "to make assaulting another human easier", unless you'd modify that as "counter-assaulting".
In the most dire situation they're a tool in a crisis to allow you to get to your long gun.
More generally, "assault weapon" a long time ago meant things like track mounted artillery designed for offensive roles, and as noted by others was more recently coined and defined by US gun grabbers as a purely political term.
I see you didn't like my zinger. I have a pistol permit, but I don't see any need to carry a gun. It's just not something I worry about.
Let's not forget these people had every intention to use those weapons against humans. This isn't some guns club hanging out.
Arguably, they intended to use them to defend themselves if they were attacked. (By humans, yes.) They were not hunting people down and assaulting them.
That being said, they were looking to defend themselves while illegally occupying a federal facility... but the particulars of that situation don't really reflect on the choice of weapon.
Right.
Carrying a firearm = self defense. Fine. Someone might attack you, you can defend yourself.
Occupying land that is not yours = protest action. Fine. You'll probably get arrested or at least sent on your way, but fine.
Occupying the land AND carrying a weapon to defend yourself isn't just like "oh man, if someone tries to rob me during my protest operation, I'll be able to defend myself!" No, it's tacitly admitting that people are going to come and arrest you, and you expect to put up a violent fight.
Nobody's under any illusion that the police are going to march in there, put handcuffs on everyone, and walk out.
> Arguably, they intended to use them to defend themselves if they were attacked. (By humans, yes.) They were not hunting people down and assaulting them.
Then again they overtly sought to institute their own court system, and overtly sought to subject government officials to trial for various crimes by that court system, and issued threats for non-cooperation with that effort, so its not at all clear that the end game, were they not arrested before that escalated further, wasn't "hunting down people and assaulting them".
That's a lot of speculation. And also immaterial to the point.
> That's a lot of speculation.
The only speculation is that they would, if not constrained by intervening events, carry out their overt threats in support of their overt goals. That's not a lot of speculation at all.
> They were not hunting people down and assaulting them.
Not with the guns, and not physically, much. But they most certainly were threatening people, according to the FBI complaint against them:
"The person with Ritzheimer told the woman he knows what kind of car she drives and he was going to follow her home and burn her house down, according to the complaint."
I prefer to call mine an anti-assault weapon. I don't have any need or plans to assault anyone, but I may have a need to defend against someone who'd like to assault me.
You don't have to assault someone for your weapon to become an "assault weapon". A semi-auto pistol grip rifle is an assault weapon. Especially when the clear purpose of them having these weapons are to be used in combat.
No it is not a defense to say that they are defending themselves. These people illegally encroached property that was not theirs.
I find it unusual that there is only passing mention of Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS) and frequency-hopping code division multiple access (FH-CDMA), which by themselves do have some issues, but combined with encryption like KY-57 or KY-58+ they can be pretty hard. Since that is some of what the US military uses, and militias are largely comprised of former military, I would expect to see more PRC119's and similar in the article, but don't. I wonder why?
edit: found my own answer in the article. "The average militia individual can’t afford the $7,500+ price tag of a 5 watt VHF HT radio that has high levels of encryption combined with frequency hopping capability; anything less than that (such as DMR or P25) is easily intercepted and decrypted in realtime."
Its interesting that the article has nothing specifically militia related. In that its just a list of point to point radios anyone can use.
There probably are characteristics or features that would appeal to anti-government activists on either the left or the right, but the article didn't mention them.
For example, if you want communications in the deep mountains for hiking or camping, its not a bad "buyers guide".
Interestingly it does side step using actual military surplus radios. Probably because the mil-surp radios us Ham Radio guys use are either too expensive or too antique to be of use. I have a nice R-392 (a "mobile" R-390). Its not exactly tacti-cool, LOL. For about a quarter century I've been planning on buying a PRC-77 to work ham radio 6 meter FM... in my infinite spare time. I like the 6m band although I've almost exclusively worked weak signal SSB.
What this makes me wonder is, could they use a cell phone Wi-Fi mesh network at least for a significant part of their communications?
I was thinking RPis with nrf24l01 chips. You could do everything with custom encryption.
This settles it. HN needs to conduct our own takeover of a federal building to show these guys how it's done :p
/sarcasm please god let this line have been unneeded
I'll be sure and pack snacks.
/yea, me too
For SHTF or remote rural use, I would use the FRS frequencies. No license required, but the Baofengs do transmit above the .25W power max. Oh well.
I guess in case of SHTF radio frequency legality won't matter anymore.
the power limit is 1/2 watt.
Isn't the FCC auctioning off some spectrum soon in former TV frequencies? Perhaps the militia groups could bid on some ...
Why call them militia-patriots when they're domestic terrorists?
Because until a group does or plans/encourages something like the Oregon takeover or the Nevada standoff they aren't really much more than a particularly pessimistic neighborhood watch with a penchant for guns and a bit of dress up.
Nobody is a terrorist until he plans or engages in terrorist activity. Do you have evidence that they did something like that?
Seizure of government property at gunpoint is certainly something.
(Though I'm not sure it really tracks with the definition of a "terrorist," since a terrorist is an armed combatant who explicitly strikes at civilians instead of at their government. A better term here might be more 19th-century-flavored words like insurrectionary or seditionist, though terms like those fell out of use as rebel and guerrilla groups abandoned direct attacks on governments in favor of terroristic tactics.)
> terrorist is an armed combatant who explicitly strikes at civilians instead of at their government
Uhm, no. This is closer to the definition of terrorism, but it's still not it. Drug store robbery gone violent involves armed people who may explicitly strike a civilian shop owner who turned out to have a gun under the counter.
Terrorism is about intent: to spread terror. If you're blowing a bomb up just to see the bodies fly, you're not a terrorist. But if you're conjuring an alien monster abomination to prevent a nuclear war between two super-powers through _terror_ against an imaginary alien adversary, you are a terrorist (although in this case one could argue that you indeed do it for the greater good).
Per 13 USC Sec. 2331 [0]:
How is the Malheur occupation not domestic terrorism, under that definition?(5) [T]he term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.Calling someone a "terrorist" only when they've engaged in "terrorist activity" is circular reasoning. I'd wager the GP's point is that defining what makes a "terrorist" is all in the eye of the beholder. The tone of the posted article avoids using words ("terror" words) that are quite readily used when other demographics engage in similar behavior.
Because they're white and conservative.