Why GA is Dying

Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 02:40:33 +0000, Jim Logajan wrote:

If a statute exists that prohibits photography or cameras in certain
areas, and you clearly are using a camera there, a cop isn't going to ask
you what you are doing with it - he or she is going to arrest you.

This isn't necessarily true. A good cop with a ridiculous law can choose
whether to arrest or merely warn.

However, why has nobody considered the possibility that the cop (or
security officer; this wasn't completely clear) might have been a photo
buff.

Judging by his tone, that wasn't the case.

Don Tuite wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:18:23 -0500, Emily
wrote:

Hell, we have people show up at HOA meetings who aren't land owners.
Figure that one out.

Developers?

Don

The last meeting I was at, some delinquents showed up to cause trouble
because we'd be calling the cops on them for trespassing. They sat
through the entire meeting before making a scene.

At least, that's what I heard. I got bored and left after three hours.

"Dave S" wrote in message
nk.net...
Interesting take on this thread... How many would have thought a more
"friendly" approach would have been to simply go out to the ramp (FBO
employee, or whomever was tasked to be ramp nazi that day) and socialize
with the photographer?

Ask him nicely about what he's doing.. comment on the nice weather... ask
him where he's from.. shake his hand.. get his name.. Ask him if he wants
to get flying lessons, maybe point out a place down the road that does
discovery flights, and offer to forward his name and phone number to
them.. Invite him to come sign a visitor's log in the lobby, which your
FBO keeps there for that purpose.. look at this ID there..

If the "visitor" gets evasive or otherwise suspicious, then play "bad cop"
and switch gears.. until then, with the friendly approach, you have made
the visitor aware that he IS being watched, while at the same time being
accomodating and promoting GA. Remember.. just about all of us started off
by going to the local field and hanging around for a bit (unless you were
born into aviation, or a product of the military).

Why is this all on the security guy anyway? Yes, the security bloke could
have used a more friendly, sales type approach, but the camera guy could
have also arrived at the field, and gone into the office and said:
Camera Dude: "Hi! I'm John! Any problems if I take a few snaps of some
planes coming in? I'm really into small aircraft, and I'd love to get some
action shots!"
Security Guy: "No problem mate! If you like, I have some old mags and charts
here you might like to have a look at! If you have any questions, just ask
away!"

Very friendly, permission given, and our camera guy may have even struck up
a relationship or conversation with a pilot in the office, and maybe scored
some info he may never have gotten.
The airfield IS after all, private property, and if anyone came onto my
property, and started snapping shots without my permission, I'd be pretty
****ed.
Crash Lander

"Crash Lander" wrote in message
...
"Dave S" wrote in message
nk.net...
Interesting take on this thread... How many would have thought a more
"friendly" approach would have been to simply go out to the ramp (FBO
employee, or whomever was tasked to be ramp nazi that day) and socialize
with the photographer?

Ask him nicely about what he's doing.. comment on the nice weather... ask
him where he's from.. shake his hand.. get his name.. Ask him if he wants
to get flying lessons, maybe point out a place down the road that does
discovery flights, and offer to forward his name and phone number to
them.. Invite him to come sign a visitor's log in the lobby, which your
FBO keeps there for that purpose.. look at this ID there..

If the "visitor" gets evasive or otherwise suspicious, then play "bad
cop" and switch gears.. until then, with the friendly approach, you have
made the visitor aware that he IS being watched, while at the same time
being accomodating and promoting GA. Remember.. just about all of us
started off by going to the local field and hanging around for a bit
(unless you were born into aviation, or a product of the military).

Why is this all on the security guy anyway? Yes, the security bloke could
have used a more friendly, sales type approach, but the camera guy could
have also arrived at the field, and gone into the office and said:
Camera Dude: "Hi! I'm John! Any problems if I take a few snaps of some
planes coming in? I'm really into small aircraft, and I'd love to get some
action shots!"
Security Guy: "No problem mate! If you like, I have some old mags and
charts here you might like to have a look at! If you have any questions,
just ask away!"

Very friendly, permission given, and our camera guy may have even struck
up a relationship or conversation with a pilot in the office, and maybe
scored some info he may never have gotten.
The airfield IS after all, private property, and if anyone came onto my
property, and started snapping shots without my permission, I'd be pretty
****ed.
Crash Lander

The airport in question most certainly is not private property, and there
are no signs posted on the field or even notices posted in the FBO directing
visitors, ramp walkers, or picture takers to check-in, show ID, or anything
else.

KB

Morgans wrote:
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:45:01 -0400, Morgans wrote:

People have been detained, all across the country, for taking
amounts of pictures, as they were casing tall buildings. They were
arrested and deported, based on the types of pictures they had taken.
Sounds like there is a law, somewhere, supporting this.
Can you cite a case for this? I'm aware of people being arrested and
deported for various crimes (or violations; a subtle and annoying
difference) like overstaying a visa. But I've completely missed a case
where some has been deported merely for taking "suspicious amounts of
pictures".

It happened in Charlotte a couple years ago. You can look it up, if you
wish.

That's pretty sad. I take pictures like crazy, usually of buildings
(daughter of a civil engineer, it's in my genes). I'd spend hours
wandering around downtown with my camera pointed up. It's unfortunate
that makes someone suspicious.

Emily wrote:
Morgans wrote:

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:45:01 -0400, Morgans wrote:

People have been detained, all across the country, for taking
amounts of pictures, as they were casing tall buildings. They were
arrested and deported, based on the types of pictures they had taken.
Sounds like there is a law, somewhere, supporting this.

Can you cite a case for this? I'm aware of people being arrested and
deported for various crimes (or violations; a subtle and annoying
difference) like overstaying a visa. But I've completely missed a case
where some has been deported merely for taking "suspicious amounts of
pictures".

It happened in Charlotte a couple years ago. You can look it up, if you
wish.


That's pretty sad. I take pictures like crazy, usually of buildings
(daughter of a civil engineer, it's in my genes). I'd spend hours
wandering around downtown with my camera pointed up. It's unfortunate
that makes someone suspicious.

Yes, and it is unfortunate that when someone is asked about it they get
combative and further raise suspicion beyond the ridiculous levels it is
already at.

Matt

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
Thomas Borchert wrote:
Emily,

Personally, I think neighborhood watches are creepy.


Especially in a country with, well, lose gun laws. But let's not go
there, the thread is bad enough as it is.

Loose gun laws? I dunno. I don't own a gun because someone in my state
filed a FOIA request to get a list of all gun owners. I would not want to
own a gun knowing that anyone who wanted to could find out I own one.

But you're right, it's bad enough as it is.

Where do you live and how does a FOIA request turn up who owns a gun? There
isn't supposed to be a database of gun owners unless you are in one of the
few states that has manditory gun registration.

In my state (GA) the only FOIA request that would get you any meaningful
information would be a request for a list of people who have concealed carry
permits.

KB

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:45:01 -0400, Morgans wrote:

People have been detained, all across the country, for taking
amounts of pictures, as they were casing tall buildings. They were
arrested and deported, based on the types of pictures they had taken.
Sounds like there is a law, somewhere, supporting this.

Can you cite a case for this? I'm aware of people being arrested and
deported for various crimes (or violations; a subtle and annoying
difference) like overstaying a visa. But I've completely missed a case
where some has been deported merely for taking "suspicious amounts of
pictures".

It happened in Charlotte a couple years ago. You can look it up, if you
wish.
--
Jim in NC

Kansas just passed a new CCW law and it will begin issuing
permit in January. They have already revised the law so
that the lists are only available to law enforcement, not
subject to FOIA requests.

Here in Kansas more than 50% of the homes have one or more
guns, but until next January, only police, PIs and criminals
on the prowl are carrying. There are even a few lawyers,
pharmacists, and taxi drivers who carry now. But soon, any
honest citizen will be able to legally carry. The state
will also soon approve out of state permits, so travel will
be safer.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
...
|
| "Emily" wrote in message
| . ..
| Thomas Borchert wrote:
| Emily,
|
| Personally, I think neighborhood watches are creepy.
|
|
| Especially in a country with, well, lose gun laws. But
let's not go
| there, the thread is bad enough as it is.
|
| Loose gun laws? I dunno. I don't own a gun because
someone in my state
| filed a FOIA request to get a list of all gun owners. I
would not want to
| own a gun knowing that anyone who wanted to could find
out I own one.
|
| But you're right, it's bad enough as it is.
|
| Where do you live and how does a FOIA request turn up who
owns a gun? There
| isn't supposed to be a database of gun owners unless you
are in one of the
| few states that has manditory gun registration.
|
| In my state (GA) the only FOIA request that would get you
any meaningful
| information would be a request for a list of people who
have concealed carry
| permits.
|
| KB
|
|

Jose wrote:

Here if there's a zoning issue and I would like to have my say I
simply show up at the city council meeting.


Can you vote? If I came from out of town, could I vote on your zoning
issues?

Zoning issues aren't something the public votes on. The city council
votes on it. You may also show up and have your say at the meeting.