GA headed for regulatory trouble

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 00:48:53 -0400, "Icebound"
wrote in
::

http://www.ij.org/private_property/c...6_29_05pr.html

Thousands of properties nationwide are facing the threat of
eminent domain for private development, and many more projects are
in the planning stages. In its first-ever nationwide study Public
Power, Private Gain, the Institute for Justice documented more
than 10,000 instances of threatened or actual condemnation for
private development nationwide ...

If our government continues to permit public takings for private use,
get ready for more Kansas City style protests.



O'Connor must have been so p'ed-off at her colleagues that she has just
resigned! :-)

Icebound:
Holy cow! I agree with you that SCOTUS eminent domain decision was
horrendous. A direct contradiction to the Fifth Amendment. The idea of
targeting Souter's house is a delicious irony, and I'm happy that this is
happening in my home state of New Hampshire ("Live Free or Die").

Here's a link to a site where you can lodge an electronic protest.

http://www.petitiononline.com/lp001/petition.html

Of course, we anti-GA folks plan to use this horrible court decision to
our advantage....

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 10:08:44 -0400, "Icebound"
wrote in
::

I like this New Hampshire protest:
http://nhindymedia.org/newswire/display/2507/index.php

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip
Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New
Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a
hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr.
Souter's home.


What goes around, comes around. :-)

I wasn't trying to be trollish with this message.
I just believe that these incursions aren't going to move in the
direction of removing regulation, but will just steer towards more
restriction.

The thing that scares me is the attitude.
There are a lot of "real pilots don't use GPS" types out there.
Actually, I could probably be accused of it myself, but I don't go
anywhere near restricted or controled space without nearly every tool at
my disposal to avoid an incursion.
This attitude of "I don't need no stinking whiz bang GPS", followed by
busting restricted space, followed by, "I am going to fight you to the
death on trying to violate me": I think cases like this hurt the
survival of free flight that I love.


Thanks
Mike

Icebound wrote:
"PittsS1C" wrote in message
...

Obviously shooting these a couple of these planes down is impractical.
(but I firmly believe you wouldn't have to kill many before no one would
wander there again)
Are there any other reasonable consequences that would major deterrent?
Part of the problem is that it is not a big enough inconvenience for
violators.
I would rather that the aviation community help find a solution before an
irrational governmental body imposes useless painful legislation upon all
the rest of us. We need to "take care of our own".
Is "Federal pound me in the ass" prison enough? (with huge bail, so they
would be massively inconvenienced)

We as pilots would have to support it. Less incursions is safer for us
(the aviation community)



In democracies, legislators should be defending themselves from aviator's
questions, rather than aviators cowering before the legislator's
impositions.

Before we go shooting these guys down, or incarcerating them for life,
consider their intent and the relative consequence of their actions.
Restrictions in any walk of life should be constantly questioned as to
purpose and effectiveness. Where imposed by the law of the land they must
be followed, of course, but they should continue to be questioned.


"Taking care of our own" should mean aggressively defending pilots whose
technical violation of a rule, has resulted in no significant consequence.


Why do we think there will be no violations, no matter what the penalty? In
all walks of life there are laws (prohibitions), and they all have
violations. The law says it is dangerous to drive too fast, some of us do
and get caught. Don't steal, burglaries do happen; don't cheat, Enron
happens; don't kill, murders do happen, etc. The law says don't fly here,
some do.

So the *regulations* hold *violations* down to a manageable level, that's
all.

If someone violates the don't-kill rule, somebody dies. When Enron happens,
ten of thousands of individual investors suffer for a very long time.

When an ADIZ violation happens, the usual consequence of the perpetrator's
action is.... uh... ???

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 10:08:44 -0400, "Icebound"
wrote in
::

I like this New Hampshire protest:
http://nhindymedia.org/newswire/display/2507/index.php

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip
Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New
Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a
hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr.
Souter's home.


What goes around, comes around. :-)

Great idea!!! I hope it comes to pass, except for the part about
Ayn Rand's book shudder.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

"Skylune" wrote in
lkaboutaviation.com:

Icebound:
Holy cow! I agree with you that SCOTUS eminent domain decision was
horrendous. A direct contradiction to the Fifth Amendment. The idea of
targeting Souter's house is a delicious irony, and I'm happy that this is
happening in my home state of New Hampshire ("Live Free or Die").

Here's a link to a site where you can lodge an electronic protest.

http://www.petitiononline.com/lp001/petition.html

Of course, we anti-GA folks plan to use this horrible court decision to
our advantage....

And you sir are part of the problem, not the solution.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Larry Dighera wrote:

Isn't sex with the 12 year old daughter of your parishioner illegal?

And you believe this because the Federal murderers told you it occurred. That's
the same sort of story they would tell about you if they shot you down. By the
time anyone found out the lie, you would be identified by the public as just one
of those "nutcases", as Jay puts it.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

"pittss1c" wrote in message
...
......
This attitude of "I don't need no stinking whiz bang GPS", followed by
busting restricted space, followed by, "I am going to fight you to the
death on trying to violate me": I think cases like this hurt the survival
of free flight that I love.



Nothing will hurt the survival of free flight (or the survival of free
anything) any more than will the imposition of meaningless feel-good
regulations that have questionable social or scientific value. Certain
rules are necessary, but many are not, and all should be continuously
monitored and questioned.

As I said before, as long as there are rules, there will be violations...
there are in every walk of life, its inevitable. That's why we invent
enforcement and justice systems. In spite of them, Washington still has to
live with something like 250 murders per year; it can live with a few dozen
or even a few hundred ADIZ incursions. If the murderers have the right to
all the usual legal defence manoeuvrings within the rules of justice, so do
the aviators.

This attitude of "I don't need no stinking whiz bang GPS", followed by busting restricted space, followed by, "I am going to fight you to the death on trying to violate me": I think cases like this hurt the survival of free flight that I love.

Do you have any evidence that the people who do the first are the same
ones that do the second and third?

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

This attitude of "I don't need no stinking whiz bang GPS", followed by
busting restricted space, followed by, "I am going to fight you to the
death on trying to violate me": I think cases like this hurt the survival
of free flight that I love.

Do you have any evidence that the people who do the first are the same
ones that do the second and third?

or any evidence that no one with a whiz band GPS would do the
second and third?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule