www.wdwmagic.com
It's obviously political in nature (as is anything coming out of Congress), but the TFRs have been more or less to keep skywriters and other aerial advertisers, as well as the famous "$29 helicopter tours" out of a large swath of WDW's airspace, at least at a certain altitude.
Except this was enacted to preclude bad actors. When enacted it had nothing to do with banners and such https://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_3634.html
Just as RCID was dissolved to supposedly "level the playing field." You don't need to give the real or complete reasoning as to why you're doing something in order to do it. That said, there were some security concerns post-9/11, but as I said earlier, I will not get into them or those matters in general in order to avoid giving any ideas to anyone who may wish to do harm to guests and cast.
Yup.
This wasn’t introduced in Florida. It was introduced in Congress. It only has one Co-sponsor Rep from FL. The other 6 or so are not.
What does Disney need to fix?
This right here. The only possible way it gets passed into law is if 1.) it gets House GOP leadership's support (unlikely), and 2.) it is lumped in with the ongoing debt ceiling negotiations (even more unlikely). Even then, it's still a huge long shot.
I believe the FAA could do it but would not be possible with an EO
Sure but the FAA reports to the DOT and the head of the DOT is a cabinet secretary.
Absolutely! Direction could come from the top but I believe there would still have to be a process. The FAA is usually a stickler for rules/process and they're a royal pita if you ever have to deal with them
There's a real practical question about whether the courts would opine on legislative intent.
www.orlandohelitours.com
bioreconstruct might approve, if not for the ostensible retaliatory nature of it. Much better photos of MK.
So let’s reduce the safety of millions of guests to benefit a helicopter tour company?There's a real practical question about whether the courts would opine on legislative intent.
For the sake of illustration, pretend my State has a unicameral legislature with 100 members. I write a bill and I explicitly say "I'm writing this bill to screw Mike's company because I don't like the mean things he said about me." The bill passes 65-35. Five other legislators join me in stating that their support of the bill was because they wanted to screw Mike. 40 legislators say the support the bill for entirely legitimate and neutral reasons. 20 legislators voted for the bill but did not publicly express any opinion about why.
The court is unlikely to strike that down merely based on the retaliatory motivation of the bill's author and the handful of legislators who voted for it for retaliatory reasons. You can't assign the motivations of individual legislators to the entire body.
International Heli Tours | Helicopter Ride & Tour in Orlando, FL
At International Heli Tours, you can see many of Orlando, Florida’s landmarks with a helicopter ride & sightseeing tour with us today! Check us out & book now!
You may want to look into something called the first amendment.
Exactly zero people are safer now than they'd be if this were rescinded. This is a relic of post-9/11 safetyism and security theater. It was supposed to have been repealed 20 years ago.
That's not how it works. The burden is on the regulators to justify why a restriction is necessary, not on me to justify why it's unnecessary.
