In reference to previous posts and observations presented by The War on Guns:
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWVtRskO1nuJEEeYe-pew4leyNRlfDIdRDKHayPQYRI5GC8XUd85Yk_Ngt-RAfxoHUFtkDxLvQvjuwsUU6KG1Yay4I4JGki60RT6n33dpPgUorLVmarnIottOF58ZW_ygAVUmTgw/s400/Dr+Form+Inquiry1144.jpg)
The new text is as follows:
[Federal Register: February 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 33)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7740-7741]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20fe07-3]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration.
14 CFR Parts 401, 415, 431, 435, 440, and 460
[Docket No. FAA-2005-23449]
RIN 2120-AI57
Human Space Flight Requirements for Crew and Space Flight Participants
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: When the FAA issued a final rule on human space flight, it described one rule as consistent with the Second Amendment of the Constitution because, among other things, the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment is a collective right. The FAA now withdraws that characterization and amends its description.
DATES: This correction is effective February 20, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information, contact Kenneth Wong, Deputy Manager, Licensing and Safety Division, Commercial Space Transportation, AST-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8465; facsimile (202) 267-3686, e-mail ken.wong@faa.gov. For legal information, contact Laura Montgomery, Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3150; facsimile
(202) 267-7971, e-mail laura.montgomery@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As required by the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, the FAA established Human Space Flight Requirements for Crew and Space Flight Participants, 71 FR 75616 (Dec. 15, 2006). The FAA's new requirements for commercial human space flight include a rule on security mandating that operators ``implement security requirements to prevent any space flight participant from jeopardizing the safety of the flight crew or the public'' and prohibiting a space flight participant from carrying on board ``any explosives, firearms, knives or other weapons.'' 14 CFR 460.53. In explaining this rule in response to a comment, the FAA characterized the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the Constitution as ``a collective right.'' 71 FR at 75626. The FAA now withdraws that characterization of the right to bear arms. The prohibition on the carriage of firearms by participants in commercial space flights remains unchanged.
The Executive Branch, through the Department of Justice, interprets the Second Amendment as securing a right of individuals to keep and bear arms. (See Memorandum for the Attorney General from Steven G. Bradbury, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, et al., Re: Whether The Second Amendment Secures An Individual Right (Aug. 24, 2004), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/olcsecondoamendment2.pdf ). In light of this interpretation, the FAA is withdrawing the statement made in the final rule.
Regardless of the nature of the right, however, it remains true, as we noted, that the right is, like any other, not unfettered. The Justice Department itself made this abundantly clear in its analysis and through its historical review. (See generally id. at 1-5, 6 n.19, 8 n.29, 18 n.68, 61-68, 73, 81-82, 87-98, 102-04.) Similarly, the Fifth Circuit, which treats the right to bear arms as an
[[Page 7741]]
individual right, has stated, ``Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms as historically
understood in this country.'' U.S. v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir.
2001).
The FAA continues to believe that the possession of weapons by space flight participants on board a suborbital rocket poses an unacceptably high risk to the integrity of the vehicle and the safety of the public, and that the rule is consistent with the Second Amendment. In proposing the rule, we pointed out that ``[s]ecurity restrictions currently apply to passengers for airlines. Some of the restrictions prohibit a person carrying explosives, firearms, knives, or other weapons from boarding an airplane. Similar types of security restrictions for launch or reentry vehicles would contribute to the safety of the public by preventing a space flight participant from potentially interfering with the flight crew's ability to protect the public.'' 70 FR 77262-01, 77271. In response to the comment regarding
the Second Amendment, we added that ``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.'' 71 FR at 75626. The FAA thus has authority to issue this rule.
Correction
In final rule FR Doc. No FAA-2005-23449, published on December 15,2006 (71 FR 75616), make the following correction: On page 75626, in the third column, fourth full paragraph, lines 16 through 20, correct, ``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'' to read ``By analogy, and for the reasons given when the FAA issued its human space flight requirements, the FAA has, consistent with the right to bear arms secured by the Second Amendment.''
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 14, 2007.
Rebecca MacPherson,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.
[FR Doc. E7-2851 Filed 2-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Now the debate can focus on the "fettering" (read "infringing") aspect of the rule. You may ask "so what?" as if this changes nothing, but in fact, withdrawing the collective rights interpetation is significant, and here's the reality I want WoG readers to walk away understanding: If you know you're right, keep pushing--even if those with vastly more reach ignore you and others actively oppose you or put you down for it--all of which happened in this case. We can't let that deter us from doing what's right. We, and by that, know that it includes YOU, can effect change when the truths we present are undeniable.
20 comments:
They're still weasels!
Well done, David.
Congratulations. Ya done good.
Syd
David,
I am quite surprised that you have succeeded, very pleased mind you, just surprised. Very nice job, sir. It is indeed now time to look at the "fettering," as you say. Again David -- Well done!
Excellent! It's good to make them back down from that damned "collective right" garbage. But they'll just say there's no right at all in the 2A.
this is why you are my guidon. Good job.
Now we work on their understanding of language. Basically that "shall not be infringed" equates exactly to "unfettered".
right on, right on
eyes on the guidon
amid shot and shell
through all the hell
gather at your post
to your duty's call
meet in courageous manner
to the colors of your banner
the colors in your sight
will lead us to the fight
ride on, ride on
to the guidon.
Good job David, I am proud to be counted amongst your colleagues.
David, you're a Rottweiler of a man. I like Rottweilers. Well Done!
Looks like some blogs are starting to pick up on this. Shame no "authorized journalist" mainstream outlet views this as news...and it's not because I didn't email them.
If you'd like to see this topic covered, why not email some of the papers and networks and ask them why the FAA reversing themselves and declaring 2A an individual vs a collective right does not qualify as news, and indicates an officially defined relationship between government and citizen that they think their readers ought to be informed about.
I know it pales in social significance to Bald Britney going into rehab or Anna Nicole's continued deocmposition, but maybe just a little something on pg D-14, under the fold...?
No kidding guys, Lone Rangering gets pretty tiresome. If you think this development has been beneficial to you, I'd appreciate some help getting this outside the gun blog community, where I fear it will stay unless some voices are added.
Anon,
Sure, they're still weasels, but don't you prefer weasels on the run to weasels ascendant? I know I sure do.
Keep pushing, all!
Damn it all. This still doesn't help me get my shotgun to the base on Io.
Just saw this story picked up by the ABC News Science blog--not the news itself, and of course no reference to WoG was made. But here's the thing--we have an opportunity here to get publicity worth literally millions? How? Aren't I getting hysterical and exagerrating now?
Let me ask you this: when was the last time, that is, how many YEARS has it been, since you've seen the 2nd Amendment articulated by the fedgov as an individual right in a mainstream news story? I'm talking news, not editorial.
Probably since the Ashcroft announcement for most of us, right?
We have an opportunity to get before the American public the sound bite that the government says 2A is not a collective right, but an individual one. And it won't cost us a dime.
All we need to do is, everyone who reads this post email your local paper or a big city paper or the TV networks and get this info to them--and challenge them as to why they aren't sharing this news with their readers/viewers.
We just saw literally thousands of gun owners take the time to weigh in on the Zumbo affair--how can you argue that seeing the media do what I suggest--and getting this info out to more than just the gun activist crowd--is not more important than that by a long shot?
You who are regulars here--and you who are first-time visitors but agree that it would be helpful to our cause to disseminate this information to the genral public will you not join me in writing the establishment media and challenging them to inform their audiences about this reversal, regulation change and admission by the federal government?
I have been doing so. Mostly I get no response. However, I have learned to keep copies so I can then write them about their non-participation in liberty.
I do know how it feels when it feels like a one charge to the ramparts. One of the reasons I value you so much. I don't feel as alone as I used to. You and others, E.David also comes to mind.
Funny, just a few minutes ago I started the process of recontacting my reps as to why I received no answer to my call for the impeachment of Hendren.
As for news outlets, I have almost given up on them. Nothing matters to them at all, unless it has an effect on their advertising revenue. I often thought they should have to do the news nude. That way we might at least we would know what screwed us and could we have possibly enjoyed it if they had given us an honest hosing.
GREAT NEWS!
I have never been more happy to have participated in such a process.
By writing my letters to Gov. I feel I have contributed in some small part, we ALL have.
Baby steps, guys....
I'll contact the papers. I was about to say that I don't expect them to take up the story--but then again, I didn't expect the FAA to back down, either. Guess it's about time I stop giving up in advance.
"Unless they can spin it into something akin to, say, a decomposing Anna Nicole corpse, a bald Britney,"
Sweet mother of pearl I said the above and swear on a stack I hadn't read your comment, David.
Great minds, Brother Fits, great minds...
Good work, David. Very good work.
Job well done. Congratulations.
They should bring back capital punishment......instead of worrying about our second amendment....
Post a Comment