"Casey Wilson" wrote in message
news:Nmmbd.2794$vJ.1675@trnddc05...

Actually, he's correct. Flying is a privalege, not a right.


Actually, he's wrong. Review my response to Martin X. Moleski earlier in
this thread to understand why.


First, in fairness to Mr. McNicoll, I have taken the above statement
out of context. I don't think putting in all the verbage would make a
difference.

In a previous message on this newsgroup, you [Mr. McNicoll] made the
statement:
"A right never has a requirement. That makes is a privilidge, not a
right."


No, I did not make that statement in this newsgroup or anywhere else. Tom
S. made that statement.



The message relating to Mr. Moleski has departed my files so I don't know
what your response was there, but the your text in this message and in the
statement quoted above certainly implies your position is that flying is a
right.


Here is the text of that message:

Actually, flying IS a right. In the US, our rights are not granted by our
government, we simply have them. Our government recognizes that our rights
are endowed by our creator, that they are unalienable rights. Our country
was founded on that notion, I refer you to this little nugget from the
Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure
these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Here's another little nugget, this one is from the Federal Aviation Act of
1958:

PUBLIC RIGHT OF TRANSIT

Sec. 104 [49 U. S. Code 1304]. There is hereby recognized and declared to
exist in behalf of any citizen of the United States a public right of
freedom of transit through the navigable airspace of the United States.

Source: Sec. 3, Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938.

Note that Sec. 104 does not grant the right to fly, it simply recognizes
that it exists. None of our rights are granted by the government, we simply
have them. Now, there are certainly rules to be followed, but those rules
don't take away from your rights, they protect the rights of others.

You have a right to fly, it is not a privilege. If you meet all the
requirements, you cannot be denied an airman's certificate, you have a right
to it.



I contend that flying an airplane [excluding ultralights and that ilk]
"requires" a certificate of some sort. In order to exercise the "rights"
of that certificate, aren't we "required" to meet certain capability/skill
standards and "required" to follow rules such as the FARs? Maybe there was
something in the dialog with Mr. Moleski to negate the seemingly obvious
contradiction. )


There was.