BOHICA! Weiner's Bill to Restrict GA

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
om...

I'd say we're about at the complacent stage.....

I'd vote for apathy.

Who cares?

Whatever.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
om...

I'd say we're about at the complacent stage.....

I'd vote for apathy.

Who cares?

In article , John Harlow says...
No, it is a desire to control an individual's choice as to who they can
marry. It's none of Bush's damn business who I, you or anybody else choose
to marry.

Then I suppose it's OK for someone to choose to marry young boys as NAMBLA
supports, or young girls ,or 2 women or 10 women or your favorite sheep
BAAAbara or a goat or your Sister etc. I wonder just who's business it is to
prevent those marriages or are all those marriages OK in your eyes ? Do you have
any boundaries? and if so why is it any of your damn business?

Chuck S

jls wrote:

He's talking about the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms as
expressed in the 2nd Amendment has been translated by Scotus as not
absolute. The right has been tied to the state militias as not an
individual right.

As far as I know, this is not correct. The only statement of SCOTUS on this matter
with which I am familiar is a statement to the effect that "the right of the people"
definitely is an individual right. This is based on the fact that the only two other
places in the Bill of Rights in which this phrase occurs cannot by any stretch of the
imagination be interpreted otherwise. To what case are you referring?

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

you sure got that right. Liberalism is a mental disease. The libs are
destroying the country.


"OtisWinslow" wrote ...
The god damn Dems are our biggest enemy. They believe in freedom
and wealth for them only. They want our weapons taken away so
we can't fight back as they redistribute what we've worked for
to some lazy ass that won't work for their own. They scare me far more
than
a bunch of
camel jockeys.

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

According to AOPA and EAA e-newsletters, a NY Congressman, aptly named
Weiner, proposes Dracinian measures against GA:

Update off AOPA's web site --

AOPA fights to stop Weiner bill in its tracks

AOPA is fighting in the halls of Congress to make sure that the anti-general aviation
bill (H.R. 5035) introduced by New York Democratic Congressman Anthony D. Weiner
doesn't even get a toehold.

"We're using our professional Washington, D.C.-based legislative staff and our
personal, ongoing relationships with powerful members of Congress to drive a stake
through the heart of this ill-conceived bill," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "The
congressmen closest to aviation issues know exactly how AOPA members feel about this
legislation."

The first opportunity for the ill-advised security legislation to advance would be
this Wednesday when the House considers the "mark-up" of legislation implementing
recommendations from the 9/11 Commission. (A mark-up is the meeting of a
congressional committee to review and amend a bill before sending it to the full
House or Senate for consideration.)

Weiner could try to offer his bill as an amendment to that legislation, but AOPA has
lobbied hard — and will continue to do so — to prevent that.

On Sept. 8, the same day Weiner released his bill, an AOPA legislative affairs staff
member met with Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.), a member of the House aviation subcommittee,
to express opposition to the bill. Graves, a pilot and AOPA member, confirmed he
would oppose the bill and made sure AOPA's staff had a copy of it, even before it was
publicly available.

AOPA also contacted subcommittee members Robin Hayes (R-N.C.) and Leonard Boswell
(D-Iowa), both pilots and AOPA members.

AOPA talked to the staff of aviation subcommittee Chairman John Mica (R-Fla.) and
Ranking Member Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.); with chairman of the full committee, Don Young
(R-Alaska); and with James Oberstar (D-Minn.), the ranking member. Any aviation
legislation ultimately has to be approved by the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, chaired by Young.

"It was very clear from all of our contacts that there is significant opposition to
this bill within the committees," said Jon Hixson, AOPA vice president of Legislative
Affairs. With that kind of opposition, it would be very difficult for the bill to
advance.

But AOPA is keeping the pressure on. AOPA met with Weiner's staff on Sept. 9,
outlining the association's opposition to the bill and providing information on the
steps already being taken to secure general aviation, including AOPA's Airport Watch
program.

And AOPA is already talking to key contacts in the Senate, in an attempt to forestall
the introduction of a similar bill in that body.

"Weiner's bill would have to clear a lot of hurdles before it would even be
considered by the House," said Boyer. "There are significant checks and balances to a
piece of legislation like this — the subcommittee, full committee, full House — then
the same over in the Senate.

"With our long experience in lobbying Congress, we know when and how to target
politicians to express our position," Boyer added. "Rarely has AOPA ever been placed
in a position to bring in the full power of our 400,000 members to stop a bill on
either the House or Senate floor because we work at being effective well prior to
that point."

Weiner's bill would require the Transportation Security Administration to set up
airline-style passenger screening at every landing facility in the United States
(some 19,500) to screen every passenger boarding every general aviation aircraft
(more than 211,000) for every flight (more than 43 million per year). That means the
TSA would have to conduct an additional 108 million passenger screenings at more than
19,000 facilities where TSA today doesn't currently have any officers. (Data from
AOPA's 2004 Fact Card.)

But Weiner's bill doesn't stop there. It would also require every pilot of every
flight to remain "in contact with the Federal Aviation Administration regardless of
the altitude of such aircraft." That would increase the workload of air traffic
controllers by at least nine times, requiring the agency to significantly increase
the size of the workforce and to install new communications and radar equipment to
cover all the areas of the country.

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

The full text of the bill finally showed up on Thomas. You can read it
by going to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and typing "HR-5035" into the "bill
number" box in the upper-left hand corner of the page. You can also see
it as a PDF by clicking on

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...08_cong_bills&
docid=f:h5035ih.txt.pdf

You can do a search for Weiner and go to his website and send him an email
asking him what he is thinking. I just did.
What a knothead. He wants to make it illegal to fly within 1500 feet of a
building..............or over a city of more than 1 million population.
Jim
"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
The full text of the bill finally showed up on Thomas. You can read it
by going to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and typing "HR-5035" into the "bill
number" box in the upper-left hand corner of the page. You can also see
it as a PDF by clicking on

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...08_cong_bills&
docid=f:h5035ih.txt.pdf

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

According to AOPA and EAA e-newsletters, a NY Congressman, aptly named
Weiner, proposes Dracinian measures against GA:


Update off AOPA's web site --

AOPA fights to stop Weiner bill in its tracks

AOPA is fighting in the halls of Congress to make sure that the anti-general aviation
bill (H.R. 5035) introduced by New York Democratic Congressman Anthony D. Weiner
doesn't even get a toehold.


There goes them thar politician, catering to the special interest groups
agin!

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

I don't see anything confusing about the 2nd Amendment. Of course
the Libs will read it to their advantage.

It protects two things:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

shall not be infringed."

Now the Libs will have you believe that the only right we have is
to bear them collectively under the banner of a militia. Not so.

Otis "From my cold dead hands" Winslow









" jls" wrote in message
t...

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. net...

"Rutger" wrote in message
om...
RKBA.

I'll probably be sorry about asking, but what is the RKBA?

No you won't.


He's talking about the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms as
expressed in the 2nd Amendment has been translated by Scotus as not
absolute. The right has been tied to the state militias as not an
individual right. Of course, I agree with Jefferson's interpretation of
the right to bear arms, being as the government always moves to get too
big
for its breeches and should sometimes be made to look down the business
end
of a gun barrel. However, I don't think Jefferson anticipated that the
barrels of the people's guns are puny and minuscule compared to those of
big
brother.