Legality of "laser jammers". . .Federal Appalent Court
02-03-2004, 10:38 AM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legality of "laser jammers". . .Federal Appalent Court
<ul><li><a href="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/10/97-9579.htm">http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/10/97-9579.htm</a</li></ul>
02-03-2004, 11:50 AM
#5
Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basically....
...the FCC is charged with statuatorily regulating RF (radio frequency) emmitting devices.
The issue here is that RMR's device does not "emit" it's own RF. Rather, it reflects a distortion of the police RF directed at it. It is a reactive device that meerly reflects an external RF and therefore should not be regulated by the FCC.
Good argument.
The issue here is that RMR's device does not "emit" it's own RF. Rather, it reflects a distortion of the police RF directed at it. It is a reactive device that meerly reflects an external RF and therefore should not be regulated by the FCC.
Good argument.
02-03-2004, 12:14 PM
#6
The ruling, basically, is for the FCC.
The questions before the court were:
-whether this court had jurisdiction (difficult to determine in cases involving a gov't agency's ruling); and
- whether the FCC's interpretation of the word "generate" would apply to a reflective device like the radar jammer (in question).
The latter question is the real test, and the Court found in favor of the FCC's interpretation:
"We conclude, therefore, that the FCC's interpretation of the term "generate" is neither "'plainly erroneous [n]or inconsistent with the regulation.'" ... The order of the FCC, released December 10, 1997, is AFFIRMED. The FCC's motion to dismiss is DENIED."
<b>Radar jammers lose; FCC wins.</b> The basis of the Court's decision is that the broader interpretation of "generate" is within the spirit and intent of the Communications Act, establishing and empowering the FCC to "...regulate and minimize interference between users of the electromagnetic spectrum..."
RMR's argument was that it's Spirit II laser jammer device merely takes the police's radar gun emissions and reflects them in a scrambled manner. It therefore does not "radiate" or "generate" RF emissions, per the letter of the Act. The claim they made to the Court was that the FCC was misinterpreting it's own regulations in calling the Spirit II a generating device. Both parts of the RMR claim were denied.
-whether this court had jurisdiction (difficult to determine in cases involving a gov't agency's ruling); and
- whether the FCC's interpretation of the word "generate" would apply to a reflective device like the radar jammer (in question).
The latter question is the real test, and the Court found in favor of the FCC's interpretation:
"We conclude, therefore, that the FCC's interpretation of the term "generate" is neither "'plainly erroneous [n]or inconsistent with the regulation.'" ... The order of the FCC, released December 10, 1997, is AFFIRMED. The FCC's motion to dismiss is DENIED."
<b>Radar jammers lose; FCC wins.</b> The basis of the Court's decision is that the broader interpretation of "generate" is within the spirit and intent of the Communications Act, establishing and empowering the FCC to "...regulate and minimize interference between users of the electromagnetic spectrum..."
RMR's argument was that it's Spirit II laser jammer device merely takes the police's radar gun emissions and reflects them in a scrambled manner. It therefore does not "radiate" or "generate" RF emissions, per the letter of the Act. The claim they made to the Court was that the FCC was misinterpreting it's own regulations in calling the Spirit II a generating device. Both parts of the RMR claim were denied.
02-03-2004, 12:16 PM
#7
Err... not exactly.
The "reflective" claim by RMR is the basis of their argument. The Court rejected this claim, and ruled in favor of the FCC's broader interpretaion of the word "generate."
Trending Topics
02-03-2004, 01:28 PM
#8
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correction guys. . . . bans RADAR JAMMERS. . . not lasser jammers. The facts are
this manurfacturers RADAR JAMMER doesn't work anyway. It appears no one has come up with one that works. Because this manurfacturer's RADAR JAMMER emits a radio frequency, it is regulated by the FCC; laser jammers do not emit radio frequencies and are therefore legal except in a few states back east where there are state laws prohibiting use.
02-03-2004, 05:25 PM
#9
Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Err...It is a play of words.....
...time to get out the dictionary. I was paraphrasing the argument as stated from the FCC and RMR.
If you look at the word generate the implied root seems to be genesis....which loosely means beginning.....can a reflective item be termed the "beginning".....not as I can interprit it....spin that in a court of law.
If you look at the word generate the implied root seems to be genesis....which loosely means beginning.....can a reflective item be termed the "beginning".....not as I can interprit it....spin that in a court of law.