Does GMRS License cover immediate family in other households?

[Tiercel]

From what I have seen, the GMRS License covers the immediate family. 

I have seen nothing to suggest they have to be in the same household, town, or even the same state.  Does anyone have any firm information to confirm or correct this understanding?

[Guest]

§ 95.1705 Individual licenses required; eligibility; who may operate; cooperative use.

A valid individual license is required to operate a GMRS station. To obtain an individual license, an applicant must be eligible and follow the applicable rules and procedures set forth in this subpart and in part 1 of this chapter, and must pay the required application and regulatory fees as set forth in part 1, subpart G of this chapter.

(c) Individuals who may operate a GMRS station. This paragraph establishes who may operate a GMRS station under the authority of an individual license.

(1) Any individual who holds an individual license may operate his or her GMRS stations.

(2) Any individual who holds an individual license may allow his or her immediate family members to operate his or her GMRS station or stations. Immediate family members are the licensee's spouse, children, grandchildren, stepchildren, parents, grandparents, stepparents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and in-laws.

(3) Any individual who holds an individual license may allow anyone to operate his or her GMRS station if necessary to communicate an emergency message.

 

I guess we got rid of the "household" idea when the law was revised. - This seems to have no mentioning of proximity but only references to established family relationships. -- The focus on the "legal" family status seems to supersede locality or living circumstances considerations.

 

But, I am but a layman trying to read code

 

 

 

[WRUU653]

1 hour ago, WRXD372 said:

Any individual who holds an individual license  may allow...

but you don't have to.

[UncleYoda]

3 hours ago, WRXD372 said:

to operate his or her GMRS station or stations

You seem to have not noticed or understood this phraseology.   It says family members can operate your station(s),  So, to me that means if they have their own station(s). they need their own license.

[WRUU653]

13 minutes ago, UncleYoda said:

You seem to have not noticed or understood this phraseology.   It says family members can operate your station(s),  So, to me that means if they have their own station(s). they need their own license.

Certainly an interesting observation. One that I doubt would or even could be enforced. The distinction is likely to reinforce that you are responsible for people using your license. 

[Radioguy7268]

Is there anything that limits an individual to one station? Many folks have multiple repeaters operating under one call sign.

My nephew 2 states over uses my repeater (and call sign) to run his family farm.

[Guest]

"... or stations."

While I normally like to argue on the side of precession (such as using non-approved radios), the argument of radio ownership might be the weakest item Part 95 has to offer - especially if you are allowed to own multiple stations... 

 

[SteveShannon]

6 minutes ago, Radioguy7268 said:

Is there anything that limits an individual to one station? Many folks have multiple repeaters operating under one call sign.

My nephew 2 states over uses my repeater (and call sign) to run his family farm.

No. In fact the wording of the requirements allows an individual to operate “stations.”

[Tiercel]

Yeah, It looks like I can allow any family can operate MY station.  I spent most of my life interpreting laws, testifying in court, etc.  This is very poorly written.  I could have stations I own all over the U.S.  I bet I could find at least one juror to agree. 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Tiercel said:

Yeah, It looks like I can allow any family can operate MY station.  I spent most of my life interpreting laws, testifying in court, etc.  This is very poorly written.  I could have stations I own all over the U.S.  I bet I could find at least one juror to agree. 

 

If GMRS forum members are called upon as your peers, you are safe ... but we know that neither the "reasonable person" nor the idea of "peers" holds up to reality  

[SteveShannon]

4 hours ago, Tiercel said:

Yeah, It looks like I can allow any family can operate MY station.  I spent most of my life interpreting laws, testifying in court, etc.  This is very poorly written.  I could have stations I own all over the U.S.  I bet I could find at least one juror to agree. 

 

But:

95.1705(b) Individual licensee responsibility. The holder of an individual license to operate GMRS stations is responsible at all times for the proper operation of the stations in compliance with all applicable rules in this part.

and 95.1705(f)(2) The licensee must maintain access to and control over all stations authorized under its license.

[WRUU653]

2 hours ago, Sshannon said:

But:

95.1705(b) Individual licensee responsibility. The holder of an individual license to operate GMRS stations is responsible at all times for the proper operation of the stations in compliance with all applicable rules in this part.

and 95.1705(f)(2) The licensee must maintain access to and control over all stations authorized under its license.

This ^^^ .

I think a good practice is if I live around family members using my license that works for me. If we’re on a trip and I hand out radios we’re still good. If they’re on a trip of their own perhaps they should have their own license. If my adult son or daughter in another State is using radios with their kids it would be best if they had their own license. I know you can make an argument against this but it maintains some control of your license and is in the spirit of how the rules are written. If some family members were or are interested I would even get them a license as a gift.

[WRXB215]

On 10/22/2023 at 6:10 AM, WRUU653 said:

If we’re on a trip and I hand out radios we’re still good.

This is my understanding of what license sharing is all about. GMRS is intended for small groups so I interpret that as being a small group at an even or on a trip together.

[WRQC527]

Is it just me, or are the GMRS/FRS rules and regulations among the most convoluted, ill-conceived and poorly-written set of rules the FCC has ever come up with? It could be just me. Maybe not. It could be others too. Or just me, I don't know.

[WRYZ926]

27 minutes ago, WRQC527 said:

Is it just me, or are the GMRS/FRS rules and regulations among the most convoluted, ill-conceived and poorly-written set of rules the FCC has ever come up with? It could be just me. Maybe not. It could be others too. Or just me, I don't know.

The rules can definitely seem convoluted at times. People having different opinions and interpretations of those rules don't help matters either.

[WRQC527]

39 minutes ago, WRYZ926 said:

The rules can definitely seem convoluted at times. People having different opinions and interpretations of those rules don't help matters either.

Yep and to make it more interesting, for the most part there is zero enforcement of any of them. 

[WRXB215]

1 hour ago, WRQC527 said:

Is it just me

It's just you...and me...and everyone else on this site. 

[Guest]

Convoluted and not enforceable because the intend outcome and reality do not match up ?!?

The "old" regulation (household) and the revised version ("bloodline") seem to indicate the intention to allow for a family unit to use the same licensee.

However, the ideal of "family unit" does not mirror the reality of most households.

The legislator clearly moved towards increased enforceability as the text was changed from "household" (extremely vague and almost impossible to establish in legal terms) to the "bloodline" idea. The latter can be documented while the former might just cover any temporary or pretend association.)

The intention of allowing a family to use the same license seems reasonable based on the spirit of the service. I guess that the problem starts when the regulatory agency and the legislator finds themselves forced to define that group.

Household is too vague and "bloodline" seems strong but turns out vague in a different way (location)...

In any case, the best way for the individual user to not be targeted by enforcement seems simple:

Follow the ruled while operating your (or the license owner's) station

... maybe it's not the easy after all ...

[WRXB215]

3 minutes ago, WRXD372 said:

Follow the ruled while operating your (or the license owner's) station

I agree whole heartedly with this. This is why so many non-GMRS radios operate on GMRS frequencies without incident. As long as those operators follow all the rest of the rules, no-one cares what kind of radio it is.

[SteveShannon]

1 hour ago, WRXB215 said:

It's just you...and me...and everyone else on this site. 

I think the rules are pretty clear.  But it’s extremely important to read all of them to put the puzzle pieces together correctly. But some of the rules are poor rules.  It makes no sense to prohibit something that cannot be detected.

[UncleYoda]

4 hours ago, Sshannon said:

I think the rules are pretty clear. 

But the rules need to be clearly understandable by the majority of the users, not just some experts.  It is obvious that everyone does not read all the regs to mean the same thing you do. 

Quote

But some of the rules are poor rules.

Yea, some of the provisions are clear enough; some won't even getting a passing grade from someone skilled in interpreting regulations.  We can submit suggestions (and  I just did last week).  On the FCC complaints page, there is link call "Your Story" where you can send them comments.  This is not for specific complaints against one station breaking the rules; that is for the complaint form.

Quote

It makes no sense to prohibit something that cannot be detected.

As in talking only to a station of the same type?  Or are you referring to people using non-certified radios?

[SteveShannon]

59 minutes ago, UncleYoda said:As in talking only to a station of the same type?  Or are you referring to people using non-certified radios?

Both of those are good examples. 

[jsneezy]

As far as I understand the family part of the rules is that everyone in my family is covered, except cousins. Meaning I can hand an HT to my father-in-law, who is technically only family because I married his daughter. I can also hand one to my aunt or uncle, but their children are out of the question. 

Because of that, I don't think bloodline is really the right way to explain it. The way I've explained it to my wife is "practically everyone on both sides of the family except cousins". 

Now, because the regulation specifically says in-laws, does that mean I could let my wife's cousin use my call-sign?

What about those areas of the country where cousin-wives are a thing? Could a license holder let his cousin use his call sign if he's married to her? That can of worms is likely to give anyone a headache...

[WRXB215]

Don't make it so complicated. You don't have to let anyone else use your license. Tell them to get their own license. It's only $35 and no test.

[jsneezy]

43 minutes ago, WRXB215 said:

Don't make it so complicated. You don't have to let anyone else use your license. Tell them to get their own license. It's only $35 and no test.

I don't think anything I mentioned was any more complicated than what the FCC has given us to work with. Except for the cousin-spouse thing. That was meant as pure sarcasm. 

There's a reason that people say navigating the website and actually getting to pay the fees is passing the GMRS test.