NOTAM

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

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)


You are familiar with states that deny licenses to those that have met all
the qualifications for them? What states are those?

I have held drivers licenses in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Illinois. In all
of those states a license must be issued to qualified applicants, they have
a right to it. A license cannot be arbitrarily denied to qualified
applicants as a privilege can.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 14:16:16 -0700, "Tom S." wrote:


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

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote in message
...

It seems to me that flying is not a right; it is a privilege and a
joy.


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

Actually, you're both wrong...sorta.

What you have is the natural right to travel/move about freely in public.
HOW you move about, though, is subject to limitations. Same with driving.
Same with guns: you have the right to a proper self-defense and
self-protection, but not necessarily a right to own/carry GUNS.

The right of the people shall not be infringed.
It says you "the people" have the right to own firearms and that right
shall not be infringed. Certainly it can be controlled such as where
you carry.

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


Travel/freedom of movement is PRIMARY; the right to FLY is derivative.

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.


It requires the government not to prohibit you. It does not require property
owners not to prohibit you from excercising your right of free speech contrary
to their property rights.


A license cannot be arbitrarily denied to qualified
applicants as a privilege can.


I am not a lawyer, but I suspect there is a bit more than this to the
difference between a right and a privilege (which I am now spelling correctly
And nowadays a pilot certificate =can= be revoked with no recourse, for no
reason the government can be held accountable for.

Any lawyers want to chime in on what the difference in law is between a right
and a privilege?

Jose



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

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:50:40 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote in ::


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.


Dennis O'Connor says the court now views a motorist's privilege to
become a right once the state has issued him a license:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ri...ews.com&rnum=2
From: "Dennis O'Connor"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Report to FAA ??
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:16:44 -0500
Message-ID:

It is time to force the courts to revisit this 'privilege' crap...
And, the FAA appealing it's decisions to itself, etc..
A drivers license used to be a 'privilege'... Court decisions
recognize that it is no longer a privilege in this transportation
dependent society, and for the state to take it away once granted, it
has to show a clear and compelling reason..
Look, 'separate but equal', was settled case law for generations... Is
it still settled case law?
Of course not! The blacks forced the courts to revisit it over and
over by simply being in the courts face every time it turned around,
sitting down at lunch counters, buses, etc., filing suits, i.e. Rosa
Parks... Finally, the courts no longer had the stomach to allow the
government to continue what was clearly a violation of constitutional
guarantees... The homosexuals understood this clearly, even though
nearly every state had laws discriminating against them, and the
supreme court had upheld the cases against those laws... They simply
kept going back at the court until it no longer had the stomach to
continue sanctioning discrimination against a class of person...

It is time for a pilot's class action suit against the government for
discrimination against a class of person... I am willing to spend and
to participate... Where are the rest of you? And yes, we will lose
the first time, or the third time, but each time the court will find
it harder to violate the constitution again....

Denny




"Rick Durden" wrote in message
...
Larry,

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

Larry Dighera wrote in message
...
On 7 Dec 2002 04:54:07 -0800, (Rick Durden)
(Rick Durden) wrote in Message ID
:

Actually, it's not his right, it's a privilege he has under our laws.

Rick, Can you post a citation supporting that statement?

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

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.


It requires the government not to prohibit you. It does not require
property
owners not to prohibit you from excercising your right of free speech
contrary
to their property rights.


A license cannot be arbitrarily denied to qualified
applicants as a privilege can.


I am not a lawyer, but I suspect there is a bit more than this to the
difference between a right and a privilege (which I am now spelling
correctly
And nowadays a pilot certificate =can= be revoked with no recourse,
for no
reason the government can be held accountable for.

Not a lawyer but the revocation might be determined to be illegal should
someone care to run it up the court system. Many laws are illegal but they
remain in place if they are not challenged in the courts.

Any lawyers want to chime in on what the difference in law is between a
right
and a privilege?

Jose



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

Bob Moore wrote in message .121...

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.

Theoretically, that may be correct. Realistically, you really don't
have a right to fly. Remember that the TSA can order your certificate
pulled without having to tell you why, or allowing you due process.

This mass hysteria that has taken over the U.S. (and is fueled by
politicians of every stripe), has resulted in an erosion of all kinds
of freedoms that we used to take for granted. In other words, we
have a lot of freedoms that look good on paper, but no longer exist in
real life.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

"G.R. Patterson III" 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.

I believe they are talking about basis of rights, not legal standings.
Hense, yours is a non-sequitur.


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.

Neither does the Preamble to the Constitution, but pols love to refer to the
"General Welfare" (and many call it a clause).

Context, sir.


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"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.

Yes, these are "negative" rights.

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


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO