They c(w)ould pick something out of FAR 107 and / or 108 that is so vague it would cover it. (I would look something up, but I'm not in an FAR scanning mood right now). The regulation (law) would sort of be like the catchall FAR 91.13 Careless and Reckless Operation of an aircraft. Walter DCA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Evan McElravy" <emcelr@po-box.mcgill.ca> To: <AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU> > For something to be a crime, there has to be a law against it. I wonder, is > there some law that the FAA can point to in support of this threat, or are > they just blowing steam about something that they're upset about? I suspect > it's the latter, which is a depressing thought. > > Evan McElravy > emcelr@po-box.mcgill.ca > http://users.penn.com/~cpa1/ > > > > > "Oh No, the FAA sent a letter to > > Dallas saying that is not going to be allowed and they were very serious > > about it. In fact, we just got a letter a couple weeks ago that if any > > employee is caught having them in their possession, taking them or giving > > them out, it will be a federal crime". >