As in the NPRM, under Sec. 460.53, a space flight participant may not carry on board any explosives, firearms, knives, or other weapons.The FAA has released its rules for tourists in space. And per the AP, if you wish to travel, you have to "promise not to sue the government." They issue a license, you sign a "waiver of claims" (Sec.440.17). So a Citizen would presumably have no standing if they wanted to challenge a ruling by unelected bureaucrats on Constitutional grounds. Pretty nice to be able to mandate yourself not responsible, that is, irresponsible, for that which you are, in fact, responsible.
XCOR inquired whether the FAA had the authority to impose security requirements under its statute and the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides that "[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.'' This right is not unfettered. Nearly every statute restricting the right to bear arms has been upheld. For example, in 1958, Congress made it a criminal offense to knowingly carry a firearm onto an airplane engaged in air transportation. 49 U.S.C. 46505. Additionally, nearly all courts have also held that the Second Amendment is a collective right, rather than a personal right. Therefore, despite the Second Amendment collective right to bear arms, the FAA has the authority to prohibit firearms on launch and reentry vehicles for safety and security purposes. [Emphasis added-DC]
The FAA reports to the DOT, and Secretary Peters reports directly to the President. It is inconceivable that she would allow policy directives to be issued against his will.
It looks like they didn't consider my comments when they crafted the final set of rules, but that's OK. Could I have some more Republican Kool-Aid, please?
----------------
I just sent the following to Laura Montgomery, Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration:
Of course I will post any reply...
6 comments:
What bothers the hell out of me is that unelected goobermint officials lie outright about the court decisions. No court ruling I've read ever said the 2A is a collective right, with the exception of the 9th Circus.
Enforcing this little piece of genius would be a doozy, of course.
David, I'll bet that Ms. Montgomery will respond the same way Newsome did: she'll sic the FBI and the BATFEces on you!
Oh, they'll enforce it just fine, thank you. They'll do full strip searches, including cavity searches, if they think they have to, and they will think they have to!
"The FAA has released its (arbitrary)rules...."
Collective right? Dream on;
Journal of the Senate of the United States of America,
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1789.
“...On motion to amend article the fifth, by inserting these ords, 'for the common defence,' next to the words 'bear arms:'
“It passed in the negative.
“On motion to strike out of this article, line the second, these words, 'the best,' and insert in lieu thereof 'necessary to the:'
“It passed in the affirmative.
“On motion, on article the fifth, to strike out the word 'fifth,' after 'article the,' and insert 'fourth,' and to amend the article to read as follows: 'A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'
“It passed in the affirmative....”
“...Resolved, That the Senate do concur in the resolve of the House of Representatives, on "Articles to be proposed to the legislatures of the states, as amendments to the constitution of the United States," with the amendments; two thirds of the Senators present concurring therein.
“Ordered, That the Secretary do carry a message to the House of Representatives accordingly.
crotalus said : BATFEces.
Maybe I don't get out much, but that's FUNNY....
just because they keep saying it doesn't make it true.
Post a Comment