ADIZ incursion - where were the lasers?

On Mon, 16 May 2005 23:56:54 -0700, "John Lakesford"
wrote in
::

As someone noted here previously, there is nothing
in the Constitution of this country that gives us a "right" to fly about
aimlessly.

Actually, anything not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is a
right of the people or states.

"John Lakesford" wrote

As someone noted here previously, there is nothing
in the Constitution of this country that gives us a "right" to fly about
aimlessly.

TROLL ALERT ! ! ! !

On Tue, 17 May 2005 18:22:34 -0400, Ron Natalie
wrote in : :

Unfortunately, the government takes the commerce clause as justifying
"delegated to the US."

Given the definition of the word 'commerce":

Main Entry: commerce
Pronunciation:*k*-(*)m*rs
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle French, from Latin commercium, from com- + merc-,
merx merchandise
Date:1537

1 : social intercourse : interchange of ideas, opinions, or
sentiments
2 : the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large
scale involving transportation from place to place
3 : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
synonyms see BUSINESS

How does the government justify such a position in the case of
recreational flyers?

Are you able to provide any information detailing the government's
revoking a citizen's _right_ to fly? Such a right seems to be
confirmed by the this act:



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.


However, it seems the Law Judge sees it otherwise:

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.
[...]

Larry Dighera wrote:


How does the government justify such a position in the case of
recreational flyers?

Because the courts have interpretted to mean any interstate travel
(even personal or recreational). Don't argue with me, I'm just
telling you how it is.


Are you able to provide any information detailing the government's
revoking a citizen's _right_ to fly? Such a right seems to be
confirmed by the this act:



The Federal Aviation Act would be without meaning without the commerce
clause. It couldn't grant any rights or place any restraints without it.


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.

There two key issues he

1. Right to transit means you can be on a plane through that airspace,
not necessarily that you can pilot it yourself.

2. Navigable airspace doesn't mean all airspace.

On Wed, 18 May 2005 07:35:16 -0400, Ron Natalie
wrote in : :

Larry Dighera wrote:


How does the government justify such a position in the case of
recreational flyers?

Because the courts have interpretted [the government's
Constitutionally granted right to manage interstate commerce] to
mean any interstate travel (even personal or recreational).
Don't argue with me, I'm just telling you how it is.

I'm not arguing with you. I'm seeking information from someone who
professes to be familiar with the subject, and am grateful for the
information you provide.

So your understanding is, that the government considers all interstate
travel to be commerce. To me, that seems to contradict the meaning of
the word 'commerce', but I'm not a Judge. Surely, it appears to leave
room for argument at least.



Are you able to provide any information detailing the government's
revoking a citizen's _right_ to fly? Such a right seems to be
confirmed by the this act:


The Federal Aviation Act would be without meaning without the commerce
clause. It couldn't grant any rights or place any restraints without it.

Given, that Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution grants Congress
the power:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes.

I assume that you mean this is where the government's authority over
the skies originates, so the government wouldn't specifically have
Constitutionally granted jurisdiction over the skies unless commerce
were occurring in them? From my point of view, it would seem that the
government has jurisdiction only over those flights that actually
involve commerce, and those recreational flights during which no
business is conducted, would be exempt from Constitutionally derived
governmental jurisdiction.

Of course, 230 years ago the drafters of the Constitution had no idea
that the issue of airborne commerce would ever develop, given that the
tenuous, first balloon flights occurred in 1783. So that document
couldn't logically be interpreted as specifically including air travel
among it's dictates.



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.

There two key issues he

1. Right to transit means you can be on a plane through that airspace,
not necessarily that you can pilot it yourself.

If the government recognizes my right to transit through navigable
airspace without their qualifying the means of said transit, it would
seem that those means are left to my discretion.

2. Navigable airspace doesn't mean all airspace.

It would be interesting to find the government's official definition
of 'navigable airspace'. I presume they mean any airspace on which
they haven't placed restrictions. But from a strictly logical
interpretation, it would seem that such restrictions are based on
Constitutional authority granting the government the right to regulate
commerce, and if a flight isn't conducting commerce, it would be
exempt from such governmentally imposed restrictions.

While I can appreciate the chaos that might occur as a result of such
an interpretation, it none the less may be a useful basis for someone
who is willing to take the issue of governmentally imposed penalties
resulting from an airspace incursion to the Supreme Court.

Thank you for the information you have provided.

On Wed, 18 May 2005 07:35:16 -0400, Ron Natalie
wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:


How does the government justify such a position in the case of
recreational flyers?

Because the courts have interpretted to mean any interstate travel
(even personal or recreational). Don't argue with me, I'm just
telling you how it is.


Are you able to provide any information detailing the government's
revoking a citizen's _right_ to fly? Such a right seems to be
confirmed by the this act:



The Federal Aviation Act would be without meaning without the commerce
clause. It couldn't grant any rights or place any restraints without it.


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.

There two key issues he

1. Right to transit means you can be on a plane through that airspace,
not necessarily that you can pilot it yourself.

2. Navigable airspace doesn't mean all airspace.

There is also the interesting detail that Federal jurisdiction over
airspace means that we do not have to secure permission of every
landowner to fly through the airspace over their land. Imagine what a
nighmare that would be!

Klein

The new owner of the "horse farm" that is under the departure end of RW 30
at Somerset Airport and is a common reporting point, firmly believes that he
owns the airspace above his farm. He has been harrassing the airport for
over a year, sending faxes and calling with tail numbers when he can, any
time someone flies "low" over his house. For a while he had "NO FLY"
painted on the roof of the house. More seriously, he recently got elected
to the Bedminster Town Council, and has been organizing the airport
neighbors against the airport. A lunatic, but a dangerous one.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Klein" wrote in message
...
snip

There is also the interesting detail that Federal jurisdiction over
airspace means that we do not have to secure permission of every
landowner to fly through the airspace over their land. Imagine what a
nighmare that would be!

Klein

Morgans wrote:
"John Lakesford" wrote

As someone noted here previously, there is nothing
in the Constitution of this country that gives us a "right" to fly
about
aimlessly.

TROLL ALERT ! ! ! !

I want to see them stop birds or insects flying in 'closed airspace.
ROTFL