Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gcc-bill.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!gcc-bill!john From: john@gcc-bill.ARPA (John Allred) Newsgroups: net.auto,net.legal Subject: Re: Radar Detector Legislation Message-ID: <282@gcc-bill.ARPA> Date: Wed, 21-Aug-85 11:08:07 EDT Article-I.D.: gcc-bill.282 Posted: Wed Aug 21 11:08:07 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 17:08:28 EDT References: <> <214@proper.UUCP> <781@dataio.UUCP> Reply-To: john@gcc-bill.UUCP (John Allred) Organization: General Computer Company, Cambridge Ma (Home of the HyperDrive) Lines: 13 Keywords: radar jammer Xref: watmath net.auto:7793 net.legal:2144 Summary: Isn't it just a federal rap?? [munch, munch] I seem to remember reading something to the effect that use of a jammer could only be prosecuted by the feds, since it is an offense against FCC regs. Even then, if the jammer was using less than 100 milliwatts, it would be legal, at least in the FCC's eyes. I also wonder if the average police officer would be able to detect if he had been jammed, given a jammer that does more that simply confuse the radar gun. Of course, even a Buford T. Justice could tell if you go wizzing by at 90, and your jammer had the radar gun display 55. Plans for such a jammer are in the back of several car magazines.