On Wed, 18 May 2005 07:35:16 -0400, Ron Natalie
wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:


How does the government justify such a position in the case of
recreational flyers?

Because the courts have interpretted to mean any interstate travel
(even personal or recreational). Don't argue with me, I'm just
telling you how it is.


Are you able to provide any information detailing the government's
revoking a citizen's _right_ to fly? Such a right seems to be
confirmed by the this act:



The Federal Aviation Act would be without meaning without the commerce
clause. It couldn't grant any rights or place any restraints without it.


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.

There two key issues he

1. Right to transit means you can be on a plane through that airspace,
not necessarily that you can pilot it yourself.

2. Navigable airspace doesn't mean all airspace.

There is also the interesting detail that Federal jurisdiction over
airspace means that we do not have to secure permission of every
landowner to fly through the airspace over their land. Imagine what a
nighmare that would be!

Klein