[ RadSafe ] NYC Proposal to Permit Radiation Detectors

[Steven Dapra]

Jan. 8

         Governments don't have to explain anything.  They just go ahead 
and do it.

Steven Dapra


At 09:48 AM 1/8/08 -0800, Brennan, Mike  (DOH) wrote:
>I would like to see the NYC explain in court the basis for declaring
>unlawful the possession of a legally obtained devise that has less
>potential to be used in a crime or cause unintended damage than does a
>rock massing the same.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
>Behalf Of Steven Dapra
>Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 6:34 PM
>To: radsafe at radlab.nl
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] NYC Proposal to Permit Radiation Detectors
>
>Jan. 7
>
>          New York City went over the edge a long time ago.
>
>          To answer your question, the germane section of the proposed
>ordinance is 10-802.  The germane portion reads:
>
>"10-802 Permits for possession or deployment of biological, chemical and
>radiological detectors.
>
>"a. It shall be unlawful for any person to possess or deploy a
>biological, chemical or radiological detector in the city of New York
>unless such person holds a valid permit therefor, provided that the
>commissioner in his or her discretion may exclude by rule any class or
>type of biological, chemical or radiological detector that shall not
>require such permit because requiring a permit therefor would not
>further the purposes of this chapter.
>
>"b. This section shall not apply to biological, chemical and
>radiological
>detectors:
>
>"(1) possessed or deployed by the department of health and mental
>hygiene, the fire department, or any other city agency authorized by the
>commissioner to possess or deploy a biological, chemical or radiological
>detector without a permit; . . . . "
>
>          Presumably what happened is that the author(s) of the proposed
>ordinance either forgot about (or didn't know about) the NY State Lab
>and the Federal agencies.  The proposed ordinance need only be
>re-written so that the section "shall not apply" to detectors 'possessed
>or deployed by any municipal, county, state, or federal government
>agency in the United States.'  Governments typically make themselves
>exempt from their own laws.  The author(s) of the proposed ordinance
>somehow managed to forget about all the other government agencies that
>might find it necessary to deploy detectors within the city limits of
>New York City.
>
>          NYC could provide some comic relief by passing the ordinance as
>written, and then having NYPD arrest NY State Lab employees, and Federal
>employees who brought un-permitted detectors into NYC.  Or, NYC could
>require all other government agencies to obtain permits for the
>detectors they wish to bring into the city.  I doubt that the either of
>these will happen.  The other government agencies will, of course,
>receive blanket exemptions via a re-write of the proposed ordinance.
>
>Steven Dapra
>
>
>At 03:20 PM 1/7/08 -0500, Edmond Baratta wrote:
> >It appears that the City of New york has gone over the 'edge'.  Many
> >Federal agencies use 'radiation detectors' in their inspections and
> >surveillance at the borders, ports and airports.  The NY State Lab has
> >portable radiaiton surveillance detectors.  Does this mean they can't
> >take them into the City? Is this going to be a means of eventually
> >obtaining more 'funds' when they decide to charge Fees?
> >
> >Ed Baratta