Stillers
Well-Known Member
I will not challenge even a bit that that is., word for word what the regulation says. I'm not challenging that fact. I'm impeaching it's legitamacy on grounds that it has no basis within The Supreme Courts Canon of Law. The authorities it empowers the government to impose are in direct contradiction with the precedents established in law by our courts and upheld consistently since our country's inception. The sovereignty of the people's rights granted under the 4th Amendment and the entitlement protections guaranteed in centuries of legal precedent are indisputable, they cannot be challenged, and are not open to interpretation. This regulation undeniably assumes powers and privileges that the government is not afforded now or ever in history. I do not have any doubt that if subjected to a constitutional challenge of its merits within the law that it will conclusively fail to meed the constitutional standard and therefore improper and unenforceable under the law.Not sure what you think or believe is not true in the US, and specifically as of May of 2021. Have a look at the following (e.g. from the federal register, e.g. CFR part 49, 107, scroll down to section 107.7, part (a), (1) & (2) and note item (iii), excerpt is below:
§ 107.7 Inspection, testing, and demonstration of compliance.
(a) A remote pilot in command, owner, or person manipulating the flight controls of a small unmanned aircraft system must -
(1) Have in that person's physical possession and readily accessible the remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating and identification when exercising the privileges of that remote pilot certificate.
(2) Present his or her remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating and identification that contains the information listed at § 107.67(b)(1) through (3) for inspection upon a request from -
Present his or her remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating and identification that contains the information listed at § 107.67(b)(1) through (3) for inspection upon a request from -
(i) The Administrator;
(ii) An authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board;
(iii) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer; or
(iv) An authorized representative of the Transportation Security Administration.
Read more at: Federal Register :: Request Access
Hope that helps clarify some things.
Now, the facts I will present to support this arguement I believe will not only prove that this to be correct but will show that these facts have already been established in precedence and have been broadly recognized by the courts and accepted by government for decades. The system of regulation which The FAA is attempting to establish is not a new policy. The government tries to sell it as a new style of regulation necessary to regulate modern technology. But that's not true.. It's the application of an old system upon a new industry. For decades now states have been empowered to require citizens who wish to drive an automobile for personal use on the roads to test and prove competent and then maintain with the state and keep on their person at all times a valid driver's license. States are also authorized to require any vehicle intended to be operated on the roads, be registered with the state by its owner who shall be responsible for maintaining that registration and ensuring that the vehicle has a properlu displayed and valid license plate issued by that state.
But not just the states, but also the federal government has implemented an identical practice of regulation by deeming certain drivers and certain vehicles as "Commercial". And the government has asserted that "Commercial Drivers" and "Commercial vehicles" shall be held to higher standards of training, responsibility, professionalism, and safety. Those drivers and vehicles subject to these standards are required under federal law to maintain a valid special license from their state issuer and obtain special registrations to be kept on file with the state and the Federal Dot.
Both the States and the Federal government retain the right to establish rules, requirements, and regulations deemed necessary and eseential to sustaining a safe and economically viable transportation network. The "Administrators" of these networks have delegated police forces as the representatives charged with enforcing these rules and when they find drivers to be in violation of these rules, are granted authority to lawfully detain these drivers and require that they present for examination by the officer their proof of registration and their valid license so they may be identified now that they have surrendered their rights under the 4th amendment as consequence of their unlawful behavior.
But, under no circumstance of the law, either state or federal is it established in law or accepted in precedent that police have the authority to arbitrarily detain drivers and lawfully demand they submit proof. Of registration and license for purpose of identification. In fact, the notion of such action being taken is considered unanimously by the courts to be egregiously unconstitutional. Nothing I've just said can be denied. My question to the courts is this.
How is the FAAs mandate for the regulation of both recreational and commercial pilots and authority to establish criteria for determining which drones are or are not required to be registered? How is this different from the machinery of government which we use for regulating both the personal and commercial transportation networks country wide? If the simple act of driving a motor vehicle does not satisfy the standards which must be satisfied before police have the authority to detain citizens and demand their identification?
Any assertion that drones, which are flown remotely, place the public at any more risk so great As to warrant the denial of 4th Amendment protections is made in bad faith with the intentions of deceiving the courts and meant for establishing unconstitutional authoritarian rule over a portion of US citizens linked by a common interest. It is no more dangerous than it is to allow economy vehicles onto roadways shared by 80,000 lb trucks carrying hazardous materials while traveling at high rates of speed. There is no difference which can be reasonably argued which exempts the FAA from the constitution. Their assertion of authority which has been denied by every judge that's ever presided over it is a absurd beyond belief. It's and insult to the courts, the people, and the constitution of such ridiculus notion that it doesn't deserve the dignification of a response.
Last edited: