NOTAM

On 27 Aug 2004 17:46:58 -0500, "Ash Wyllie" wrote:

...I fly in my backyard. So do lots of people, and do they know that they are not
allowed to fly?

I doubt there are many backyards like that in the NYC area. )

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" (that I know of). Folks in the
Academy of Model Aeronautics are doing what they can to get
the word out, but lots of RC pilots are not AMA members.
There is no obligation to be a member in order to fly on private
property or wherever permission is granted by the owner(s).

Marty

In article , "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" writes:
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" (that I know of). Folks in the
Academy of Model Aeronautics are doing what they can to get
the word out, but lots of RC pilots are not AMA members.
There is no obligation to be a member in order to fly on private
property or wherever permission is granted by the owner(s).

.... or to fly on PUBLIC property regardless of what the AMA thinks...

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf
www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org

Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html

On 28 Aug 2004 07:20:17 -0500, oD (Bob
Kaplow) wrote:

In article , "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" writes:
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" (that I know of). Folks in the
Academy of Model Aeronautics are doing what they can to get
the word out, but lots of RC pilots are not AMA members.
There is no obligation to be a member in order to fly on private
property or wherever permission is granted by the owner(s).

... or to fly on PUBLIC property regardless of what the AMA thinks...

Agreed. It all depends on what permission the managers of the
public property are willing to grant.

It seems to me that flying is not a right; it is a privilege and a
joy.

Marty

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote in message
...

It seems to me that flying is not a right; it is a privilege and a
joy.


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.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote in message
...

It seems to me that flying is not a right; it is a privilege and a
joy.


Actually, flying IS a right. In the US, our rights are not granted by our
government, we simply have them.

Actually, you're both wrong...sorta.

What you have is the natural right to travel/move about freely in public.
HOW you move about, though, is subject to limitations. Same with driving.
Same with guns: you have the right to a proper self-defense and
self-protection, but not necessarily a right to own/carry GUNS.

Travel/freedom of movement is PRIMARY; the right to FLY is derivative.


--
"A mind, like a home, is furnished by its owner,
so if one's life is cold and bare he can blame
none but himself." -- Louis L'Amour

You might want to rethink your "guns" theory...

From the Second Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed"

From www.dictionary.com: arms - "A weapon, especially a firearm" and: gun -
"A portable firearm, such as a rifle or revolver".

A gun is a firearm, a firearm is an arm. The Second doesn't refer to SOME
arms and by not specifically delineating what arms may be owned or
possessed, the right is extended to ALL arms.

So, in fact, we do have a Constitutional right to "own/carry GUNS".






"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote in message
...

It seems to me that flying is not a right; it is a privilege and a
joy.


Actually, flying IS a right. In the US, our rights are not granted by
our
government, we simply have them.

Actually, you're both wrong...sorta.

What you have is the natural right to travel/move about freely in public.
HOW you move about, though, is subject to limitations. Same with driving.
Same with guns: you have the right to a proper self-defense and
self-protection, but not necessarily a right to own/carry GUNS.

Travel/freedom of movement is PRIMARY; the right to FLY is derivative.


--
"A mind, like a home, is furnished by its owner,
so if one's life is cold and bare he can blame
none but himself." -- Louis L'Amour

In article , "Bill Denton" writes:
You might want to rethink your "guns" theory...

From the Second Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed"

From www.dictionary.com: arms - "A weapon, especially a firearm" and: gun -
"A portable firearm, such as a rifle or revolver".

A gun is a firearm, a firearm is an arm. The Second doesn't refer to SOME
arms and by not specifically delineating what arms may be owned or
possessed, the right is extended to ALL arms.

So, in fact, we do have a Constitutional right to "own/carry GUNS".

Actually, we should have more than that. When the Bill of Rights was
written, we had the right to own the most powerful weapons on the planet.
Right now, I'll settle for a fully armed F15 :-)

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf
www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org

Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

Actually, you're both wrong...sorta.


Nope.



What you have is the natural right to travel/move about freely in public.
HOW you move about, though, is subject to limitations. Same with driving.


Correct, and as long as you meet the requirements you cannot be denied the
right to fly. Or drive. That's what makes it a right and not a privilege.



Same with guns: you have the right to a proper self-defense and
self-protection, but not necessarily a right to own/carry GUNS.


It appears you're unfamiliar with the Bill of Rights.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

Actually, you're both wrong...sorta.


Nope.



What you have is the natural right to travel/move about freely in
public.
HOW you move about, though, is subject to limitations. Same with
driving.


Correct, and as long as you meet the requirements you cannot be denied the
right to fly. Or drive. That's what makes it a right and not a
privilege.

A right never has a requirement. That makes is a privilidge, not a right.
Recall the line "inalienable rights"...? Do you know what "inalienable"
means?

Actually, he's correct. Flying is a privalege, not a right. The FARs even
use that language. Remember what happened after 9/11? The government took
away everyone's privalege to fly, but took away no one's right to free
speech.

Shawn
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

Actually, you're both wrong...sorta.


Nope.



What you have is the natural right to travel/move about freely in
public.
HOW you move about, though, is subject to limitations. Same with
driving.


Correct, and as long as you meet the requirements you cannot be denied the
right to fly. Or drive. That's what makes it a right and not a
privilege.



Same with guns: you have the right to a proper self-defense and
self-protection, but not necessarily a right to own/carry GUNS.


It appears you're unfamiliar with the Bill of Rights.