Got my BFR ahead of the TSA rule

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:YUaed.230649$wV.108149@attbi_s54...

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
Suppose the government were to ban government-certified high-school
teachers from privately teaching dangerous subjects such as chemistry
or driver ed to students who are pursuing a government certification
(such as a high-school GED or a driver's license), unless the government
approves those students first.


THe case here is that the GOVERNMENT is controlling someone from using a
GOVERNMENT issued certificate to teach someone something that will lead
to a GOVERNMENT issued certificate.
Gig

Yes, and that is the case in my analogy as well. A driver's license and a
GED are government-issued certificates.

--Gary


Did the government issue the certificate to teach you to drive or teach for
the GED? If they did they can take it away.

Gig

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
Suppose the government were to ban government-certified high-school
teachers from privately teaching dangerous subjects such as chemistry
or driver ed to students who are pursuing a government certification
(such as a high-school GED or a driver's license), unless the
government approves those students first.


THe case here is that the GOVERNMENT is controlling someone from using a
GOVERNMENT issued certificate to teach someone something that will lead
to a GOVERNMENT issued certificate.
Gig

Yes, and that is the case in my analogy as well. A driver's license and a
GED are government-issued certificates.

--Gary


Did the government issue the certificate to teach you to drive or teach
for the GED? If they did they can take it away.

Wait, perhaps I misunderstood you earlier. Is it the case that you're
agreeing that I'm describing analogous restrictions; but you're saying
that those restrictions wouldn't frighten you either?

And no, the fact that the government issues a certificate to you does not
necessarily give them the right to take it away, or even the power to do so
(although that power is certainly growing). It depends on whether they can
establish a good reason for doing so.

And we're not even talking about merely taking away a certficate. The TSA
has the power to impose a fine of $10,000 per violation if a CFI imparts
knowledge without the government's permission. Thus, CFIs who insist on
ignoring the regulation could be subject to having their homes and life
savings confiscated as retaliation. Imagine if that were to happen to
chemistry teachers who engage in unauthorized spreading of knowledge to GED
students.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:UVced.231023$wV.219416@attbi_s54...
"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
Suppose the government were to ban government-certified high-school
teachers from privately teaching dangerous subjects such as
chemistry or driver ed to students who are pursuing a government
certification (such as a high-school GED or a driver's license),
unless the government approves those students first.


THe case here is that the GOVERNMENT is controlling someone from using
a GOVERNMENT issued certificate to teach someone something that will
lead to a GOVERNMENT issued certificate.
Gig

Yes, and that is the case in my analogy as well. A driver's license and
a GED are government-issued certificates.

--Gary


Did the government issue the certificate to teach you to drive or teach
for the GED? If they did they can take it away.

Wait, perhaps I misunderstood you earlier. Is it the case that you're
agreeing that I'm describing analogous restrictions; but you're saying
that those restrictions wouldn't frighten you either?

And no, the fact that the government issues a certificate to you does not
necessarily give them the right to take it away, or even the power to do
so (although that power is certainly growing). It depends on whether they
can establish a good reason for doing so.

My certificate says, "Has been found to be properly qualified to exercise
the PRIVILEGES of:"

I signed it. So, I accepted the PRIVILEGES part of it. PRIVILEGES can be
taken away by the grantor. When they start messing with RIGHTS I'm right
there with you.


And we're not even talking about merely taking away a certficate. The TSA
has the power to impose a fine of $10,000 per violation if a CFI imparts
knowledge without the government's permission. Thus, CFIs who insist on
ignoring the regulation could be subject to having their homes and life
savings confiscated as retaliation. Imagine if that were to happen to
chemistry teachers who engage in unauthorized spreading of knowledge to
GED students.

--Gary

What if that same CFI insists on ignoring FAA regulations that go with the
certificate? Do you think the FAA should say, "No problem. Go ahead a SOLO
that 5 year old."

If you don't like the regulation scream and yell and get it changed. But you
are going to have to scream and yell to your congress critter. Doing it here
isn't going to do any good.

Or if you really beleive that this regulation is unconstitutional sue the
TSA.

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...
My certificate says, "Has been found to be properly qualified to exercise
the PRIVILEGES of:"

I signed it. So, I accepted the PRIVILEGES part of it. PRIVILEGES can be
taken away by the grantor.

Not arbitrarily. Legally and morally, revocation of privileges requires a
sound reason. It requires due process.

When they start messing with RIGHTS I'm right there with you.

Legally and morally, there is a right not to have privileges revoked
arbitrarily. For instance, the government cannot lawfully or rightfully
revoke your piltot's license based on your religion or political party.

Besides, regardless of the word printed on the certificate, travel
(including air travel) is a fundamental right. The government is obliged to
respect that right, subject only to regulations that are plausibly needed
for safety and other legitimate public concerns.

What if that same CFI insists on ignoring FAA regulations that go with the
certificate? Do you think the FAA should say, "No problem. Go ahead a SOLO
that 5 year old."

Uh, no. But how is that comparable to what's under discussion? How does the
existence of a regulation that imposes a plausible safety requirement bear
on the reasonableness or legality of a regulation that tries to criminalize
certain instances of the dissemination of basic knowledge?

--Gary