If the government wants to force such a retrofit, they can damn well pay
for it themselves! And where there's an electronic attack, there's
always an electronic defense and countermeasure.
David_Russo@channelhealth.com wrote:
>
> To: mil-veh
> Thank God I dont live in California, but here is a bill I was alterted of:
> Basically it is a device that a Police officer can shoot a "encrypted" laser
> beam at and stop your vehicle.
>
> Notice the languauge in Section (2) that mandate ALL vehicles will have this
> device by 2008.
> Section (3) makes it a misdemeanor to disable this thing.
> I fear this, because it seems like often legislation starts in California and
> later trickles around to the other liberal
> states like New York, then eventually to the whole country. (Like MBTE gas)
>
> This seems like another threat to the hobby, can anyone from Ca. enlighten us as
> to where this bill is?
>
> BILL NUMBER: SB 2004 AMENDED
> BILL TEXT
>
> AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 4, 2000
> AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 12, 2000
>
> INTRODUCED BY Senator Speier
>
> FEBRUARY 25, 2000
>
> An act to amend Section 3053 of, and to add Sections 417.10,
> 1203.1p, and 13519.10 to, the Penal Code, and to amend Section
> 40000.15 of, and to add Sections 493, 2419.5, 4000.5, 4000.6, and
> 27010 to, the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.
>
> LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
>
> SB 2004, as amended, Speier.
> Pursuit intervention termination management system.
> (1) Existing law provides for the duties and responsibilities of
> the Department of the California Highway Patrol.
> This bill would require the department to certify that a
> manufacturer or the manufacturer's designee of any pursuit intervention
> termination management
> system, as defined, offered for sale in the state complies with
> performance standards, as prescribed.
> (2) Existing law does not require that vehicles offered for sale
> in this state have a pursuit
> intervention termination management system installed.
> This bill would impose that requirement on new motor vehicles on
> and after January 1, 2005, and on all vehicles required to be
> registered in the state on and after January 1, 2008. The bill would
> authorize the department to grant waivers from the installation
> requirement, as specified.
> (3) Existing law provides for certain equipment requirements for
> motor vehicles and provides penalties for violations of those
> requirements.
> This bill would make it a misdemeanor, thereby imposing a
> state-mandated local program, for any owner of a motor vehicle that
> is required to install a functioning safety track
> pursuit intervention termination management system to fail
> to maintain that system in accordance with the manufacturer's
> specification.
> ..........it goes on
> but here is another scary part:
> 6) A remote activation device shall be sufficiently
> accurate so as to activate the device installed in the targeted
> vehicle, and leave unaffected any vehicle within a one-half mile
> radius of the target vehicle.
>
> Gee, half a mile, that could be me, in my car, trying to get the hell out of the
> way!!
>
> Here is the full URL
> http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_2001-2050/sb_2004_bill_20000504_amended_sen.html
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 24 2000 - 20:55:35 PDT