Originally Posted by
franklin_m
I oppose ONE aspect of AMA's policy goals, and that is any use of rule or law to force association with a PRIVATE dues collecting organization as a condition for exercising a privilege in the PUBLIC airspace. They tried with 336, with the ED himself saying that "We believe membership is required..." and now they're trying it again with the FRIA concept ... knowing they enjoy a near total monopoly on FRIA sites.
They can require membership to participate in their reindeer games (competitions) all day long, as I could care less. But requiring membership to just exercise the privilege in PUBLIC airspace is wrong on many levels, and I will do all I can to ensure it does not happen.
Originally Posted by
mach5nchimchim
That would be coming from the law on the books, just because the AMA would benefit from said law; you hold it against them to. You just don't want to see them benefit from anything the AMA, was the AMA the big bully in school who took away your balsa glider as a kid in school and not give it back, cause you didn't want to go play on their playground (emphasis added)?
Please cite such law. Tell you what, I'll save you the trouble. There is no such "
law on the books" as you say.
Again, I oppose just ONE aspect of AMA's policy goals, and that is any use of rule or law to force association with a PRIVATE dues collecting organization as a condition for exercising a privilege in the PUBLIC airspace. They tried with 336, with the ED himself saying that "We believe membership is required..." and now they're trying it again with the FRIA concept ... knowing they enjoy a near total monopoly on FRIA sites.