From:  "James C. Reeves" <jcnospam@nospam.com>
Date:  23 Jan 2005 11:28:51 Hong Kong Time
Newsgroup:  news.alt119.net/co.general
Subject:  

Re: Colorado HB1045 - Ban Radar/Laser Jammers

NNTP-Posting-Host:  69.140.140.54

"Brent P"  wrote in message 
news:25udnRh0QdhQRWzcRVn-sA@comcast.com...
> In article , James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>> Nothing to interpret.  A radar detector is not "designed or intended" to
>> "scramble" radar signals.  Neither is a missing tag.  The wording is as
>> clear as it can be.  It seems to me that the problem here is not
>> "interpretation", but "comprehension".
>
> INTENDED TO INTERFERE WITH, DISRUPT, OR SCRAMBLE
>
> One could argue the radar detector does interfere with police usage of
> the device. Take out the words PASSIVE and INTERFERE WITH and the worries
> go away.
>
>

One can argue anything...usually at $300 an hour tough.