home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!ames!agate!netsys!ukma!computer-privacy-request
- Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 22:56:56 GMT
- From: John De Armond <jgd@dixie.com>
- Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
- Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions
- Message-ID: <comp-privacy1.118.4@pica.army.mil>
- Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access. The Mouth of the South.
- Sender: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
- Approved: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
- X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
- X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
- X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 118, Message 4 of 9
- Lines: 28
-
- rj@cadre.com (Rob deFriesse) writes:
-
- >: Not that this is a privacy issue, but I thought that banning radar
- >: detectors was technically a violation of federal law. I think
-
- >While it is illegal to ban any reciever, the law also states that it
- >is illegal to use a reciever in the commision of a crime. This is
- >how they justify the prohibition of radar dectectors.
-
- No, not at all. The states base their law on their right to regulate
- what equipment is used in a vehicle. Virginia got burned early on by
- confiscating detectors they could not prove was being operated in
- the vehicle. Thus the use of radar detector detectors.
- This is the same basis used to rationalize scanner bans and red/blue
- flashing light bans. Whether this rational would withstand a Supreme Court
- test is anyone's guess.
-
- John
-
- --
- John De Armond, WD4OQC |Interested in high performance mobility?
- Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers?
- Marietta, Ga | Send ur snail-mail address to
- jgd@dixie.com | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
- Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta? Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
-
-
-