NOTAM

"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.

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

Many confuse "right" and "privilege", the fact remains that flying has
been declared to be a right in the US.



We have no "right" to fly. It's a privelege granted by the govt which can
be snatched away at any time.

"OtisWinslow" wrote in message
...

We have no "right" to fly. It's a privelege granted by the govt which can
be snatched away at any time.


Where is the granting of privilege found in the Constitution? Flying is a
"right" in the same sense that free speech is a "right".

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


So how did driving (a car) become a privelage?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

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


So how did driving (a car) become a privelage?


It didn't.

So how did driving (a car) become a privelage?

It didn't.


It is recognized in law as a privelage, not a right. At least in the US. (or
the states with which I am familiar)

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:23:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
et::


"OtisWinslow" wrote in message
. ..

We have no "right" to fly. It's a privelege granted by the govt which can
be snatched away at any time.


Where is the granting of privilege found in the Constitution? Flying is a
"right" in the same sense that free speech is a "right".


Given the authoritative citation you have provided, I share your
belief. However, Mr. Durden raises some valid points in this message:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ri...gle.com&rnum=2

From: (Rick Durden)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Right vs. privilege
Date: 21 Sep 2001 04:41:59 -0700
Message-ID:
References: 3baa3f99.552242815@news

se (Ron Rapp) wrote in message
news:3baa3f99.552242815@news...

I wish your argument were true, unfortunately, it's not. The issue
has been litigated a number of times. Under the Constitution we have
a right to travel. We do not have a right to a particular modality of
doing so. That is part of the reason why there is no such thing as a
pilot's "license" as to have a license is to have a right, there is
only a pilot's certificate. As a result, we have to fight in the
political arena for our flying privileges as opposed to the courts for
our flying rights. (Although, as with all privileges, the government
still must take certain steps before restricting them...steps I
believe were not taken and which made the entire ground illegal, but
that's another issue.)

Don't forget that the Federalist papers were a propoganda [sic] work
written
by one of the groups that supported ratification of the Constitution,
using its perspective on the document, to encourage the states to
ratify it. Let's just say that some liberties were taken with the
truth in some cases. They wanted the constitution ratified and
sometimes were a little zealous in their pursuit of the goal. It is
not law, some of the arguments in it are valid and have been accepted
at times by the courts in support of certain constitutional issues,
however, a lot of the arguments are pure nonsense, so it has to be
viewed on a case by case basis.

All the best,
Rick
I sent this to Phil Boyer this morning. Thoughts?

--------------------------------

Phil--

First of all, thanks for all your hard work to get us back in the air.
We all appreciate your efforts--Lord knows it's going to be months of
work just to get us back to the level of restriction we had before all
this stuff blew up.

I think the real thing that has been holding GA back is the perception
that flying is a "privilege", not a right.

I think it is a right.

The Civil Aviation Act of 1958 and subsequent legislation has turned
it into a "privilege". But the U.S. Constitution trumps any and all
laws:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.

The Federalist Papers, while not law, also support the idea that
flying is our right.

In light of recent events, I would suggest it's time to build a
coalition of our own between AOPA, EAA, NBAA, and other aviation
organizations for the purposes of challenging this in court.

Once flying is recognized as our God-given right, it will be much
harder for a large federal government to oppress aviators in this way.
The onus will be on them to prove the exacting need for each and every
law or regulation, instead of the current situation where the burden
is upon us to prove that we are worthy of being granted the limited
use of whatever scraps of airspace the government deems acceptable.

What do you think?

--Ron

P.S. The legal costs for this would be high, but if there was ever a
cause that aviators would contribute to, this is it.
--------------------------------------------------


Here's another of Mr. Durden's views on the question:

From: (Rick Durden)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Report to FAA ??
Date: 8 Dec 2002 20:52:08 -0800
Message-ID:


Under the U.S. Constitution, citizens have a "right" to travel,
however it does not give anyone a "right" to do so via a motor
vehicle which he or she operates. As a result, you hold a pilot
"certificate" not a "license". Every single time that the issue
has been raised, piloting an aircraft has been held to be a
privilege, not a right. This has been discussed in detail on this
forum in the past. If you look at Part 61 of the FARs you will
see sections on the privileges of the various levels of
certificate, but nothing on rights. Should you violate a
regulation, the proceeding to prosecute you for the violation is
entirely civil, not criminal, as you are not going to be
stripped of an essential right and jailed...which also means you
have no right against self-incrimination and you are not given any
sort of warning regarding your "rights" when you are questioned.

Not being where I can provide you citations, nevertheless, you
might look at the Federal Aviation Act and cases interpreting it.
The matter has been litigated and the right versus privilege issue
was resolved many years ago. I suspect that my opinion on the
subject is similar to yours, I don't like the situation, but I'm
stuck with it.

All the best,
Rick

----------------------------------------------------


Here's another authoritative data point:

From: "Rick Cremer"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Arrrgghhh!! FAA strikes again...
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:02:45 -0500
Message-ID:

[...]
NTSB Hearing Order EA-4232; Docket SE-13136. Here is [sic] the
pertinent parts of that Law Judge's finding:

The FAA is charged with being sure that it fulfills its mission to the
public and that is keeping the airways and aircraft that use these
airways safe. Flying is a privilege, it is not a right and all
airmen are charged with discharging their duties in a highly
conscientious, responsible and prudent manner and at all times.
[...]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

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


So how did driving (a car) become a privelage?

It didn't.

Driving a car on private property is not considered a privilege. Driving on the
public roads is, however, considered a privilege in New Jersey, Tennessee, and
Georgia. I don't know about other States, but I'd bet there are a lot more who have
similar laws on the matter. Basically, it's considered a priviledge because the roads
are owned and maintained by the State and local governments.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

Basically, [driving a car] considered a priviledge because the roads
are owned and maintained by the State and local governments.


.... and who owns the airspace?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

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

"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.

I apologize. When a message has multiple responses caged together
I sometimes lose track of who said what.