bps
November 10th, 1999, 11:52 AM
As stated in 36 CFR Sec2.17a3:
Sec.2.17 Aircraft and air delivery.
(a) The following are prohibited:
(3) Delivering or retrieving a person or object by parachute, helicopter, or other airborne means, except in emergencies involving public safety or serious property loss, or pursuant to the terms and conditions of a permit.
Food for thought: After careful research, the legal definition of delivery is "the bringing or obtaining of something not already there".
In court, could this regulation be proven invalid for the prosecution of BASE jumping, since an individual already in the park cannot be "delivered" to where they already are?
I know that:
The real issue is access.
The real issue is discrimination.
The real issue is the close-minded approach that the land managers have and the public perception of cliff jumping.
But in the meantime:
Could the above approach help with the current legal battles?
This is not just a court battle between Avery, Mick, Joe, and Henry and the NPS. It is a movement for the legalization of cliff jumping within our parks.
I hope that everyone is dedicating their resources towards this movement, whether it is financially, writing letters, conducting research, or anything else that is a POSITIVE way of promoting our sport.
So many are sacrifing ALOT. Can you at least give a little?
C-ya,
Bryan
Sec.2.17 Aircraft and air delivery.
(a) The following are prohibited:
(3) Delivering or retrieving a person or object by parachute, helicopter, or other airborne means, except in emergencies involving public safety or serious property loss, or pursuant to the terms and conditions of a permit.
Food for thought: After careful research, the legal definition of delivery is "the bringing or obtaining of something not already there".
In court, could this regulation be proven invalid for the prosecution of BASE jumping, since an individual already in the park cannot be "delivered" to where they already are?
I know that:
The real issue is access.
The real issue is discrimination.
The real issue is the close-minded approach that the land managers have and the public perception of cliff jumping.
But in the meantime:
Could the above approach help with the current legal battles?
This is not just a court battle between Avery, Mick, Joe, and Henry and the NPS. It is a movement for the legalization of cliff jumping within our parks.
I hope that everyone is dedicating their resources towards this movement, whether it is financially, writing letters, conducting research, or anything else that is a POSITIVE way of promoting our sport.
So many are sacrifing ALOT. Can you at least give a little?
C-ya,
Bryan