NOTAM

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

"ShawnD2112" wrote in message
...

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.



The FARs even use that language.


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

By whom? If it's a right, why do we need a license?

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.


Apparently you're not familiar with the McCain-Feingold act.

Non-sequitur.

"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.

And it's correct.




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:
PUBLIC RIGHT OF TRANSIT


No, butthead! TRANSIT is a right. Riding on an airliner is not a right (you
don't pay a "fare" for a RIGHT.


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.

Steve. stick to ATC rules, okay. Beyond that you're clueless.


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.

Geezz..what a dope!!

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

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?

IMHO, George should have written "Basically, it's considered a privilege
because the roads are NOT owned by the driver". If you owned your own
airspace, you'd have the free and clear right to fly within that airspace.
But you don't...you share the airspace with everyone else (and the federal
government has effectively taken ownership of it anyway), so the federal
government imposes rules.

It's more about who doesn't own the place where you exercise the "right" or
"privilege" than it is about who does own that place.

Pete

"Matt Barrow" wrote

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

By whom? If it's a right, why do we need a license?

Does this help?

TITLE 49 SUBTITLE VII PART A subpart i CHAPTER 401
§ 40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace
(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.—
(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty
of airspace of the United States.
(2) A citizen of the United States has a PUBLIC RIGHT of
transit through the navigable airspace.

And......I don't have a "license", my pilot "certificate" is
all that the FAA requires.

Bob Moore

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 02:21:02 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Tom S." wrote in message
...

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.


Wrong. The rights of one impose requirements on others. For example, your
right to free speech requires others to allow you to speak.



Recall the line "inalienable rights"...?


Very well.



Do you know what "inalienable" means?


I sure do.


Apparently many of our politicians do not.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger wrote:

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 02:21:02 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

Do you know what "inalienable" means?

I sure do.

Apparently many of our politicians do not.

There's no indication that that's the case; however, they probably know (as some
posters in this thread apparently do not) that the phrase "inalienable rights" does
not occur in any U.S. legal document that guarantees those rights to us. It occurs in
the Declaration of Independence, which does not have the force of law. To sum it up,
it's a pretty word, but not pertinent to this discussion.

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

Roger wrote:

Wrong. The rights of one impose requirements on others. For example, your
right to free speech requires others to allow you to speak.

Nope, it just requires the government not to prohibit you.

You've got the freedom of speech, but it doesn't mean you will be heard.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Roger wrote:

Wrong. The rights of one impose requirements on others. For example,
your right to free speech requires others to allow you to speak.

Nope, it just requires the government not to prohibit you.


The government is the "others" referred to.

Todd Pattist wrote:

The exercise of the right of free speech is subject to
certain limitations too. You can't yell "FIRE!" in a
crowded place and you can't tell the FBI lies.

And you can't speak out just anywhere you want to, either. Start preaching to
strangers (or similar activities) at one of the attractions in Great Smokey Mountains
National Park, and you will be directed to one of the "First Amendment Exercise
Zones" that they've set up. Keep preaching outside the zone, you will be evicted from
the park. Come back and do it again, and you'll get arrested.

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

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...

There's no indication that that's the case; however, they probably know
(as some posters in this thread apparently do not) that the phrase
"inalienable rights" does not occur in any U.S. legal document that
guarantees
those rights to us. It occurs in the Declaration of Independence, which
does
not have the force of law.


It does not occur in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of
Independence uses the phrase "unalienable Rights". Jefferson used
"inalienable rights" in an earlier draft.