Pilots flying into Oregon must register with the state!?

Larry Dighera writes:

The solution to these unconstitutional "laws" is to actively oppose
them, and get them overturned.

Agreed, but unfortunately justice costs money in the U.S. (and just about
everywhere else), so if you are not rich, how do you actively oppose
unconstitutional laws and win?

Jose writes:

The marshals have an interest in Threats To National Security.

A failure to register under an unconstitutional State law is not a threat to
national security, although it is certainly a threat to civil liberties and
constitutional rights.

Jose writes:

Yes, but if an official in that state calls something a Threat To
National Security, then that Threat has to be taken Seriously.

Which law mandates this? Is it anything like lettres de cachet?

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Bob Gardner wrote:
This is not aimed at itinerant pilots...Washington has a similar
rule. It is parallel to the rule about registering automobiles after
60 days.
Bob Gardner

The way it is written it is parallel to a requirement to register your
automobile if you drive through the state.

I've been driving from Northern California
(where I live) to Washington (where my family
is) for the last 35 years. Back when I drove
a diesel Rabbit, I was tweeked that the state
charged something like $.20/gal. "trucker's
tax" on diesel that neither WA or CA charged.

Now another thing. I guess we really don't
have to worry unless the Oregon Air National
Guard issues intercept procedures for collection
of the fee.

Jose wrote:
To some extent as to all federal law enforcement agencies. But,
luckily, this isn't a federal NS issue. It is one state ignoring the
Constitution.

Yes, but if an official in that state calls something a Threat To
National Security, then that Threat has to be taken Seriously.

Jose

Fine, please show one example where the marshalls have tried to enforce this
or some other silly state law.

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jun 11, 8:14 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jun 11, 6:21 am, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
Jose wrote:
Since I live on the East coast, I think I'd feel fairly safe at
blowing them off, even if I ever did fly in their state. What
are they going to do? Send federal marshals?

Well, if you blow them off, you can be identified as a Threat To
National Security. So, yes, they could send in the marshals, and
do much worse, before it's overturned.

Jose

Well since this is a state law I doubt federal marshals would have
any interest at all.

If that were true medical pot smoking would be legal in California.
People go to jail for this in California because its a federal law
even though the state as a registration system for users who have Dr
approval. When my mom was dieing the Dr even suggested she try it
(she didn't). Its legal according to the state but if the feds find
out she'd go to jail.

-Robert

Not the same situation at all.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry, I've spent so many years taking law classes I assume everyone
has the same level of knowledge of the law. The constitution say that
anytime a law is in "federal space" federal rules trump the state. So
in both cases, states have created laws which actually inhabit space
already allocated by the federal gov't, and therefore not legal. The
federal space in this case is the interstate commerce clause. In the
medial pot case its federal DEA administrative law, but the legally
important thing is that they are both federal.

-Robert

You are still comparing apples and oranges. If you medical pot rule were
reversed and it was legal on a federal level and not on a state level it
would be the same.

On Jun 11, 11:23 am, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jun 11, 8:14 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jun 11, 6:21 am, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
Jose wrote:
Since I live on the East coast, I think I'd feel fairly safe at
blowing them off, even if I ever did fly in their state. What
are they going to do? Send federal marshals?

Well, if you blow them off, you can be identified as a Threat To
National Security. So, yes, they could send in the marshals, and
do much worse, before it's overturned.

Jose

Well since this is a state law I doubt federal marshals would have
any interest at all.

If that were true medical pot smoking would be legal in California.
People go to jail for this in California because its a federal law
even though the state as a registration system for users who have Dr
approval. When my mom was dieing the Dr even suggested she try it
(she didn't). Its legal according to the state but if the feds find
out she'd go to jail.

-Robert

Not the same situation at all.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry, I've spent so many years taking law classes I assume everyone
has the same level of knowledge of the law. The constitution say that
anytime a law is in "federal space" federal rules trump the state. So
in both cases, states have created laws which actually inhabit space
already allocated by the federal gov't, and therefore not legal. The
federal space in this case is the interstate commerce clause. In the
medial pot case its federal DEA administrative law, but the legally
important thing is that they are both federal.

-Robert

You are still comparing apples and oranges. If you medical pot rule were
reversed and it was legal on a federal level and not on a state level it
would be the same.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, I'm coming at this from a legal point of view (looking at legal
arguments). The issue is not which is legal and which is not, the
issue you would argue in court is whether federal law has carved out
the space. Whether the feds say its legal or not is irrelevant to the
courts, if the feds have that space, the state law is null and void.
Its just a bit of an oddity of how the law is exercised.

-Robert

I never did this, I don't know anyone who has.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Jose writes:


The marshals have an interest in Threats To National Security.


A failure to register under an unconstitutional State law is not a threat to
national security, although it is certainly a threat to civil liberties and
constitutional rights.

How would you know, Frenchie?

Mxsmanic wrote:

Larry Dighera writes:


The solution to these unconstitutional "laws" is to actively oppose
them, and get them overturned.


Agreed, but unfortunately justice costs money in the U.S. (and just about
everywhere else), so if you are not rich, how do you actively oppose
unconstitutional laws and win?

Ahem.

France.