A couple of phone calls yesterday helped correct some information on all sides. Sometimes it is difficult to realize what one participant is really saying, especially about the others, until you talk to them all and get clarification. Such is politics. To that... We had to clarify/ensure that we do not want to be adversarial/controversial nor intent to 'embarrass' anyone. The goal is to determine reasonable accommodation amid known/well-defined safety concerns. The Calif Police Chief's Assoc. is a "primary consultant" as it were with the Assembly. They of course have their focus on public safety. The 'cell' portion of things is backed by known safety, distraction, enforcement, accident data. The 'radio' concerns may or may not have been considered but apparently there is no specific data indicating it is an issue - and the lack of data that radio use may or may not be a problem - well - it is difficult to make a case on no data. Conversely the question is - if there is no data indicating something IS a problem, why make a rule against it? Moving along... this will be a year long process among Assembly, CPCA and other participants. 'We' need to be one of those participants - engaged in the conversations, negotiations, data, etc. This needs both specific "one voice" focus interacting with them, and individual advocacy working with local law enforcement and representatives - because any results have to be considered by over 100 other politicians!! I have sent our concerns to ARRL legal counsel and all ARRL Section managers in CA. How or if the ARRL engages is TBD. Again - we need a one-voice task force on this, and that's being worked on. Likely we'll need some legal counsel. We HAVE the potential for our considerations. Hang in there.