home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!computer-privacy-request
- Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:07:02 GMT
- From: robert.heuman@rose.com (robert heuman)
- Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
- Subject: Radar Detector Prohib
- Message-ID: <comp-privacy1.120.4@pica.army.mil>
- Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
- 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 120, Message 4 of 8
- Lines: 31
-
-
- Date Entered: 12-28-92 13:58
- John De Armond <jgd@dixie.com> writes:
- in Message-ID: <comp-privacy1.118.4@pica.army.mil>
-
- JD> No, not at all. The states base their law on their right to
- regulate
- JD> what equipment is used in a vehicle. Virginia got burned early on by
- JD> confiscating detectors they could not prove was being operated in
- JD> the vehicle. Thus the use of radar detector detectors.
- JD> This is the same basis used to rationalize scanner bans and red/blue
- JD> flashing light bans. Whether this rational would withstand a Supreme Court
- JD> test is anyone's guess.
-
- Interesting discussion, but obviously limited to the US. In Canada
- the Federal Government, in its infinite wisdom, simply made them
- illegal. No question of constitutional rights, or court challenge...
- just plain made them illegal...
-
- Obviously the US needs to have its constitution changed, to make it
- possible for the Executive Branch to simply follow the same course,
- for the good of ALL drivers. After all, speed kills. Congress would
- love it, wouldn't they? Look at all the porkbarreling eliminated this
- way. US Taxpayers might actually SAVE money, too.
-
- Bob
- ---
- RoseReader 1.70 P001886: This Canadian has an Opinion...His Own!
- RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
-
-