RE: 9-29 AMA Member Meeting, Texas    Gallery
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
    Search This Thread  
 
Printable Version


Mikado Logo XXTREME Combo - RTF
Seller:  Hegemonoius
Details:   $2,975.00   |  4/29/2013   |  Classified Ad
We will rotate YOUR AD in this spot if you select "Forum Featured" when placing or editing your ad!

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> AMA Discussions >> RE: 9-29 AMA Member Meeting, Texas
Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Tower Hobbies Get Coupon Codes Brands  
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 9-29 AMA Member Meeting, Texas - 10/17/2012 5:53 AM   
FrankHawks


 

Posts: 144
Score: 105
Joined: 2/27/2010
Last Login: 10/17/2012
From: mobile, AL, USA
Status: offline 		I believe some information was displayed that showed the AMA might not meet the definition of a CBO, that being a community based organization, and we were presented with several personalized definitions of that term.  Numerous opportunities were availed to show evidence otherwise.  This thread speaks for itself.  I am satisfied with the information I have gleaned from reading the above posts, the AMA's website, and the sites of the AMA's supposed partners.  If you or others wish to take another lap around the  topic then you certainly need no prompt from me to do so.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to KidEpoxy)
       Post #: 26

RE: 9-29 AMA Member Meeting, Texas - 10/17/2012 1:33 PM   
Top_Gunn


 

Posts: 888
Score: 134
Joined: 6/27/2005
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: Granger, IN, USA
Status: online
quote:

and it will be the FAA defending itself for its regs in violation of pl112-95
rather than AMA needing to defend itself for some hypothetical violation of those illegal regs after those regs get put on the books. Just by putting the regs on the books is the initiator for FAA being dragged into court by CBOs, no need to wait for someone to break the regs. PL112-95 says the regs cant be made by FAA.


This is nonsense. The way regulations get challenged as invalid is that people who are charged with violating the regulations defend themselves by arguing that the regulations exceed the agency's statutory authority. The idea that someone can just go to court when regulations are announced and ask the court to decide whether they are OK is simply wrong. I'm not trying to argue about what should happen, just describing the way the legal system does handle these things. KE is not a lawyer and his ideas of how the legal system works are uninformed.


_____________________________

Al Gunn
Ultra Sport Brotherhood No. 9

Hide Signatures

(in reply to KidEpoxy)
       Post #: 27

RE: 9-29 AMA Member Meeting, Texas - 10/18/2012 1:54 AM   
littlecrankshaf



Posts: 4101
Score: 259
Joined: 12/9/2001
Last Login: 5/24/2013
From: here
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Top_Gunn

KE is not a lawyer and his ideas of how the legal system works are uninformed.


I missed it where KE gave any legal advice... He seemed to merely give some input about "the meeting", offered some things to consider, and gave some insight to his "personal" opinion... Like many folks here do...but I may have missed the legal advice he gave and your character assignation may be fully warranted...

_____________________________

Wow! Another epiphany…that is why the suckups suckup. Super sucking protection power. Yea baby.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Top_Gunn)
       Post #: 28

RE: 9-29 AMA Member Meeting, Texas - 10/18/2012 3:31 AM   
KidEpoxy



Posts: 6681
Score: 431
Joined: 10/14/2004
Last Login: 11/18/2012
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline 		LCS
Hers another observation I can make in regards to
TG's declaration of how laws get challenged:
quote:

The way regulations get challenged as invalid is that people who are charged with violating the regulations defend themselves by arguing that the regulations exceed the agency's statutory authority. The idea that someone can just go to court when regulations are announced and ask the court to decide whether they are OK is simply wrong.


I observed a law writ by Arizona
get taken to a court WAY before it went into effect (which is WAY WAY before anyone has been hurt by it).
Do we have to be a lawyer to have seen that happen
or just read any paper / watch any channel the day parts of the AZ law were struck down prior to anyone actually getting hurt by it?

How many times have we seen Cal voters pass a prop into law
just to have it killed in courts before it can go into effect.


Now, how does that reconcile with what TG said happens?
Do we all just agree to pretend the Arizona law DID go into effect
and someone was later done wrong by it
and THEN AND ONLY THEN did the court get involved?
Are we supposed to pretend all them court killed cal props saw even 1 day in effect?

Or do we admit that all the time laws are inside courts before folks get hurt and even before the law goes into effect?


TopGunn
Tell me where I am wrong.
Tell me the AZ law did have time in effect and hurt someone BEFORE the courts struck parts.
Tell me no Cal prop was ever killed in courts before a chance to go into effect.
Tell me when the FAA writes a regulation on CBOs that they are not violating an explicit fed ban on that activity(cbo reg writing).


Its not a matter of "Whahhhh, that new law is unfair and unconstitutional",
its a matter of witnessing a crime: "Hey justice dept, I see FAA violating pl112-95".

Hide Signatures

(in reply to littlecrankshaf)
       Post #: 29

RE: 9-29 AMA Member Meeting, Texas - 10/18/2012 3:52 AM   
Top_Gunn


 

Posts: 888
Score: 134
Joined: 6/27/2005
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: Granger, IN, USA
Status: online
quote:

its a matter of witnessing a crime: "Hey justice dept, I see FAA violating pl112-95".


The idea that issuing regulations that exceed statutory authority is a crime is truly novel. I don't believe that is a position anyone has ever even argued, and it certainly is not one that any American court has ever taken. Federal crimes are defined by statute, and there is no Federal statute making the issuance of invalid regulations a crime.

As I said before, the validity of regulations is challenged by people who have been charged with violating those regulations. We are not dealing with constitutional issues here. It may also be worth pointing out that the invalidity of regulations limiting what modelers, even those following the rules of a CBO, can do is not nearly as clear as some people seem to think. As several people have pointed out in this and other threads, there is plenty of wiggle room in the law for the FAA to issue all sorts of regulations that can affect us.

_____________________________

Al Gunn
Ultra Sport Brotherhood No. 9

Hide Signatures

(in reply to KidEpoxy)
       Post #: 30

RE: 9-29 AMA Member Meeting, Texas - 10/18/2012 5:44 AM   
United_Pilot



Posts: 42
Score: 100
Joined: 2/8/2012
Last Login: 10/20/2012
From: hilton, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

I observed a law writ by Arizona
get taken to a court WAY before it went into effect (which is WAY WAY before anyone has been hurt by it).


I think you are ignoring the fact that the Federal Government filed that lawsuit as the injured party claiming that the state of Arizona was encroaching the Federal Governments jurisdiction. So the Federal government was legally the injured party or in your terms, "hurt by it".

As for the California cases , I am unfamiliar, could you please be more specific so that the injured party may be identified.


I believe it is possible, (definitely not a lawyer here), that the AMA could bring suit against the FAA as the injured party AFTER the FAA has injured us.  I also believe the FAA could bring suit against us if we refuse to comply with thier Regs/pay fines.  I hope we never find out.

_____________________________

United Airlines Union Brotherhood , Da Bears

Hide Signatures

(in reply to KidEpoxy)
       Post #: 31

RE: 9-29 AMA Member Meeting, Texas - 10/18/2012 9:10 AM   
chuckk2


 

Posts: 371
Score: 106
Joined: 7/24/2007
Last Login: 5/22/2013
From: Warner Robins, GA, USA
Status: offline 		The way I read things, the FAA can craft regs that apply to ALL aircraft flown in the US.  They can easily write something that is bad news for modellers.  I don't think things are over yet!  In past decades, "uncontrolled airspace" over private land was virtually ignored and even in some circumstances exempted from FAA concern.  That's no longer the case, thanks to 9/11. The major debacle is still ongoing.


Hide Signatures

(in reply to KidEpoxy)
       Post #: 32

RE: 9-29 AMA Member Meeting, Texas - 10/18/2012 4:22 PM   
littlecrankshaf



Posts: 4101
Score: 259
Joined: 12/9/2001
Last Login: 5/24/2013
From: here
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chuckk2
  I don't think things are over yet! 

Agree...nothing to hang our hats on just yet...and there will never be... Now, with that understood, I am just going to do what is I have been doing... regardless of the modeler's FAA or the big plane FAA...

_____________________________

Wow! Another epiphany…that is why the suckups suckup. Super sucking protection power. Yea baby.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to chuckk2)
       Post #: 33

RE: 9-29 AMA Member Meeting, Texas - 10/18/2012 6:14 PM   
TexasAirBoss



Posts: 2678
Score: 151
Joined: 10/9/2002
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline 		There are two kinds of negotiations; in the first kind, one side rolls over the other side. It might look like things went smoothly to the uninitiated, but the reality is that one side typically got creamed. It is much better to be part of a negotiation where both sides put up a fight, (or at least our side has). It might look ugly at times, but it is suppose to look ugly. It means you are pushing back against the oppressor. I wouldn't worry too much. This is exactly how things should look at this point. You just need to be patient.

_____________________________

ME: "I need a good rate down to one three thousand". EXPRESS: "Roger, we''re coming down like a Bonanza full of doctors"

Hide Signatures

(in reply to littlecrankshaf)
       Post #: 34

RE: 9-29 AMA Member Meeting, Texas - 10/19/2012 5:05 PM   
KidEpoxy



Posts: 6681
Score: 431
Joined: 10/14/2004
Last Login: 11/18/2012
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline 		Gunn,
yes or no : Did the Arizona law go into court and get gutted BEFORE it went into effect?
yes or no : There were/are OTHER filings against that law before effect by folks(groups) besides the fed?



United
quote:

I think you are ignoring the fact that the Federal Government filed that lawsuit as the injured party claiming that the state of Arizona was encroaching the Federal Governments jurisdiction.

And you dont see the subordinate FAA encroaching into the Congress' jurisdiction?
This is a simple mater of congress writing law that says XXX shall not do YYYY,
and then XXX did YYY in violation of that law.
Folks seem hung up on just what YYY is and other cases about doing YYY in general,
its about the law saying XXX shall not do YYY... yet they did ("will", we are forecasting here right )

The FAA is injuring the federal government (congress) by encroachment (as you explained per AZ),
and if we as witnesses report that to the Just dept, we dont foot the bill (directly) for JustDpt spanking FAA with pl112-95.

It really comes down to
which federal laws the government feels like enforcing/'deprioritizing' on any given day.
If they choose to permit violation of 112-95... uh, I mean 'deprioritize' pl112-95..
well... not much we can do... it wont matter if the laws on the books protect us
if the executive branch(the branch not the guy) refuses to execute current laws from the legislative branch(Congress)

Hide Signatures

(in reply to TexasAirBoss)
       Post #: 35

RE: 9-29 AMA Member Meeting, Texas - 10/19/2012 7:38 PM   
Top_Gunn


 

Posts: 888
Score: 134
Joined: 6/27/2005
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: Granger, IN, USA
Status: online
quote:


The FAA is injuring the federal government (congress) by encroachment (as you explained per AZ),
and if we as witnesses report that to the Just dept, we dont foot the bill (directly) for JustDpt spanking FAA with pl112-95.


In fact, as any lawyer would tell you, Justice Department lawyers will be the ones defending the FAA's position if its regulations are challenged. The idea that the Justice Department will challenge another agency's regulations is ludicrous.

I haven't followed the litigation about the Arizona law any more closely than you have. Since I don't know the details, and since it has nothing to do with the process for challenging regulations as invalid and therefore is beside the point, I don't propose to talk about it. I am, however, very familiar with many cases involving the validity of Federal regulations. In every one of them, the challenge was from someone objecting to the way in which the regulations had been applied to them.

_____________________________

Al Gunn
Ultra Sport Brotherhood No. 9

Hide Signatures

(in reply to KidEpoxy)
       Post #: 36

RE: 9-29 AMA Member Meeting, Texas - 10/20/2012 12:29 AM   
United_Pilot



Posts: 42
Score: 100
Joined: 2/8/2012
Last Login: 10/20/2012
From: hilton, USA
Status: offline
I said that I believe we could take them to court if they injure us :

quote:

ORIGINAL: United_Pilot

I believe it is possible, (definitely not a lawyer here), that the AMA could bring suit against the FAA as the injured party AFTER the FAA has injured us.  I also believe the FAA could bring suit against us if we refuse to comply with thier Regs/pay fines.  I hope we never find out.



But,  we must first be recognised as a CBO by the court.  That seems like the sketchy part to me.  I can't see how the AMA can begin to claim it does half of the things in the CBO definition.  My fear, is that the court would not recognise us, and thus would not allow us to sue the FAA.

I realize that you believe that having website links and the occasional 4H day at the feild meets the requirements.  I certainly do not.  I expect the court to demand evidence of national programing with numerous educational institutions. I also expect the courts to demand evidence of numerous partnerships with aviation organizations at national levels, and the same for government agencies. And as the definition states, these relationships must be mutual supportive.  The AMA has aquantances, at best, with very few organizations, and many do not fit the catagories required.  

I seriously doubt that a court will allow the AMA to sue the FAA as a CBO because some member spoke to a class of 4th graders in Des Moines.  

We disagree with each other on so many points on this issue that I can see no constructive outcome and see no reason to continue the discussion. I accept none of your claims that the AMA meets the definition of a CBO.  I also disagree with your understanding of the court system and how unjust laws are corrected. We are simply too far apart on every issue that I have mentioned. And I have neither the time nor interest to continue the conversation with an anonomous stranger.

< Message edited by United_Pilot -- 10/20/2012 1:27 AM >

_____________________________

United Airlines Union Brotherhood , Da Bears

Hide Signatures

(in reply to United_Pilot)
       Post #: 37

Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> AMA Discussions >> RE: 9-29 AMA Member Meeting, Texas
Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]





Jump to:


 
Google 



Search | Marketplace | Event Calendar | Local Clubs | Magazine | Product Ratings | New Products | Discussion Forums

Photo Gallery | Instructor Search | Field|Track|Marina Search

Advertisers | Hobby Vendor Resources | Rate Manufacturers | Sign In/Sign Up

SITE MAP!   : :   FORUM RULES

RC Universe is a service of Internet Brands, Inc. Copyright © 2001-2013.

Charities we support that also need your help
Yorkie Rescue | Humane Society | ASPCA | Crohn's-Colitis America


0.594RCU1