PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · May 22, 2007
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on May 14, 2007. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2007 - Amends the federal criminal code to impose a fine and/or prison term of up to five years for any person who knowingly aims the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft or in its flight path.
Exempts from such prohibition: (1) individuals conducting research and development or flight test operations for an aircraft manufacturer or the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); (2) Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security personnel conducting research, development, operations, testing, or training; or (3) an individual using a laser emergency signaling device to send an emergency distress signal. Authorizes the Attorney General to promulgate regulations for granting additional exemptions.
People & committees
Rep. Keller, Ric [R-FL-8] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5551)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H5551)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1615.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5551-5553)
Mr. Conyers moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 89.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-149.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-149.
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Discharged.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1615 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1615 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1615 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1615 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.