Good points in: XC Mag > How to survive the CoronaVirus layoff 

Related discussion: PGF > Do I or don’t I?

Light at the end of the tunnel: today, San Diego reopened / eased restrictions on many of the county parks.

Still not back to normal by any means, and definitely still a time for conservative flying (or staying home), but that’s a good sign.

San Bernardino county’s official page says the following.

”A State and Local Health Order has been placed for residents to stay at home except to get food, care for a relative or friend, get necessary health care, or go to an essential job. If you must leave your home for an essential outing, wear a face covering that covers your nose and mouth and keep at least 6 feet of distance from other people.”

Exactly how is AJX operating close to normal with commercial activities, students, visiting pilots, and oh yeah – emergency services being delivered? Maybe those of you participating feel you’re super cool, or some kind of aerial outlaw, but many of us have other words to describe you and your  irresponsible actions.

Different choices and still be right?  <– This is a link.

I wrote our beloved congress person, Paul Cook the following:

It’s my job to violate unjust laws, it’s your job to address and prosecute state government actors who violate the law of the land, by arbitrarily restricting freedom of movement.
Gavin Newsom and the police in California have violated Constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of movement, and I don’t see the federal government doing it’s job to prosecute unjust and illegal decrees.
State governments cannot legally enforce laws that restrict movement or travel anywhere in the state on public roads, or between states.
There’s plenty of case law on that.

U.S. Constitution Annotated Amendment XIV. RIGHTS GUARANTEED Section I
PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES

Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 35 (1868). It was observed in United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281, 299 (1920), that the statute at issue in Crandall was actually held to burden directly the performance by the United States of its governmental functions. Cf. Passenger Cases (Smith v. Turner), 48 U.S. (7 How.) 283, 491–92 (1849) (Chief Justice Taney dissenting). Four concurring Justices in Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 177, 181 (1941), would have grounded a right of interstate travel on the privileges or immunities clause. More recently, the Court declined to ascribe a source but was content to assert the right to be protected. United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 758 (1966); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629–31 (1969). Three Justices ascribed the source to this clause in Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 285–87 (1970) (Justices Stewart and Blackmun and Chief Justice Burger, concurring in part and dissenting in part).

Mitch I did not choose to stay earthbound because of a law.

<b>Social Distancing: a sign of the times. I believe it is David kiting?</b>