Tom_in_CA
Gold Member
- Mar 23, 2007
- 13,837
- 10,360
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 2
- Detector(s) used
- Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
There's been some threads over the years, about whether state laws automatically subrogate (pass down) to county and city levels, as it regards to metal detecting. Afterall, the logic goes, cities and counties are merely sub-sets of the state. And a city can not "legalize" something that is "dis-allowed" on the state (or the fed, for that matter), level. Those with this line of reasoning therefore, would point someone in their state, who has questions about city level parks, for instance, to this FMDAC list:
Federation of Metal Detector & Archaeological Clubs Inc.
But whenever I've seen that answer floated, for city or county level stuff, I've taken the position that those state level rules were/are for STATE level parks, not city or county land and parks. To which the contrary position points out that the state level laws (and fed for that matter) would be supreme, and the cities can not "legalize" something that is illegal at a higher level. For example, a city can not "legalize" a crime that is outlawed in the state penal code, or fed. law (drugs, murder, etc...) since the higher level law is "supreme". Or a state can not change immigration policy, since fed. immigration law is "supreme", and so forth.
If that is to be believed as it pertains to metal detecting too, then it puts an immediate chilling effect on some states who, as you can see from the above link, have out-right "no's" for their state's parks. Yet as we all know, this has been understood, by us all, to apply only to those state's parks, and have no bearing on lower entities parks (where it may be silent on the subject, and no one cares, etc....).
Today I passed this question by a lawyer. Here was his answer: For the examples of things like murder, heroin, immigration, tax laws, state penal code stuff, etc... Yes, those things are "supreme" that a lower level govt. can not over-turn in their boundries. However, in each case of those things, it is explicitly spelled out as JUST THAT: "supreme". As opposed to other things, where it is distinctly "just" for federal land. Or "Just" for state park land, etc.... In those cases, we are not to assume that they too, unless explicitly stated, apply down to counties and cities.
The link that I give above, was formulated, way-back-when, by specific questions to each state's state park headquarters. Notice however, that "parks" is not the only form of state land. Obviously each state owns lots of other land, for things like roads (and the right-of-ways thereof), office buildings, etc..... So for starters, it can immediately be deemed an answer that distinctly only deals with state level parks (and not subrogated down to city and county parks), since the question was never posed to "all" that state's land, in the first place. And even if someone found a law that dealt with all that state's land (regardless of park vs non-park), still, even that, according to this lawyer, would even still have to explicitly say that this is supreme, reaching down to all land (as opposed to just state land). Otherwise, no, it still doesn't mean it reaches down to counties and cities.
So the bottom line is: The answer was that anything seen in ARPA (federal) or any of those states in that list, only apply to federal land, or the state's land, unless explicitly saying otherwise.
Federation of Metal Detector & Archaeological Clubs Inc.
But whenever I've seen that answer floated, for city or county level stuff, I've taken the position that those state level rules were/are for STATE level parks, not city or county land and parks. To which the contrary position points out that the state level laws (and fed for that matter) would be supreme, and the cities can not "legalize" something that is illegal at a higher level. For example, a city can not "legalize" a crime that is outlawed in the state penal code, or fed. law (drugs, murder, etc...) since the higher level law is "supreme". Or a state can not change immigration policy, since fed. immigration law is "supreme", and so forth.
If that is to be believed as it pertains to metal detecting too, then it puts an immediate chilling effect on some states who, as you can see from the above link, have out-right "no's" for their state's parks. Yet as we all know, this has been understood, by us all, to apply only to those state's parks, and have no bearing on lower entities parks (where it may be silent on the subject, and no one cares, etc....).
Today I passed this question by a lawyer. Here was his answer: For the examples of things like murder, heroin, immigration, tax laws, state penal code stuff, etc... Yes, those things are "supreme" that a lower level govt. can not over-turn in their boundries. However, in each case of those things, it is explicitly spelled out as JUST THAT: "supreme". As opposed to other things, where it is distinctly "just" for federal land. Or "Just" for state park land, etc.... In those cases, we are not to assume that they too, unless explicitly stated, apply down to counties and cities.
The link that I give above, was formulated, way-back-when, by specific questions to each state's state park headquarters. Notice however, that "parks" is not the only form of state land. Obviously each state owns lots of other land, for things like roads (and the right-of-ways thereof), office buildings, etc..... So for starters, it can immediately be deemed an answer that distinctly only deals with state level parks (and not subrogated down to city and county parks), since the question was never posed to "all" that state's land, in the first place. And even if someone found a law that dealt with all that state's land (regardless of park vs non-park), still, even that, according to this lawyer, would even still have to explicitly say that this is supreme, reaching down to all land (as opposed to just state land). Otherwise, no, it still doesn't mean it reaches down to counties and cities.
So the bottom line is: The answer was that anything seen in ARPA (federal) or any of those states in that list, only apply to federal land, or the state's land, unless explicitly saying otherwise.
Last edited:
