LAWS - DESIGNED TO DISCOURAGE METAL DETECTING DETECTING - WHY & HOW

[Eureka!]

No. That's not correct. C'mon now Eureka, laws consistent across the entire USA ? The "clear and concise" in one easy-to-look up compendium ?

Ok, let's put that to the test: What's the speed limit ? Is it 65 mph ? One easy concise clear and consitent law to apply to "all roads", right? Ok, do you really want people driving down your residential street at 65 mph ? I mean, c'mon Eureka, you CAN'T have laws and rules that "fit all" for every place around. Some places are great for dogs off-leash, while others aren't. Some lakes are great for speed boats, while others aren't big enough or safe enough size-wise. So therefore, no, you're not going to get uniform laws that stretch across all counties, cities, states, and fed's, in a one-size fits all fashion. Because think about it: if this were true, then there would no longer be a need for sub-entities. No states, no counties, and no cities. Why? Because afterall: Eureka wants codes, laws, charters, rules, to be exactly the same everywhere. So if that were true, there's no need to even have those sub-entities, to begin with.

IF you are referring to Interstate Highway's 65MPH - State Road (like Route 13) 55MPH - School Zone 20MPH etc. Uninformatively across the Nation.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Eureka!]

It's not hard to find public places to detect. I hunt public places all the time. If you want to worry yourself to death about what some busy-body might say, then yes, you can ALWAYS find some law or rule that can be morphed to preclude you. Just keep asking long enough and hard enough, and you'll eventually find someone to tell you that you can't hunt even the most innocuous of sandboxes. Moral of the story ? STOP ASKING D*MB QUESTIONS. And if there's a certain busy-body lookie-lou that doesn't like it? FINE. Hunt when that person is not around. Sure I wish it wasn't like this. Sure I wish everyone "rolled out red carpets" for me. But you've got to realize that detecting has "connotations". If you're not willing to accept this, then I suggest you find another hobby. There will ALWAYS be someone who thinks you might be about to leave a mess. Or "take park features" or harm earthworms, or whatever the h*ck it is they think applies. Ok, fine: avoid that one person.


Kinda like nose-picking: can you use a little more discretion in your timing, rather than thinking it's your duty to get every last person in the world to sign off on it ?

Tell that to you neighbor in this video: http://news.yahoo.com/video/man-could-face-jail-time-182030850.html

 

[doc-d]

What happened to the land of the free?

 

[deodra]

What happened to the land of the free?

We were free in 1776 and by 1777 the ruling body decided it would be a great thing to be like who they just fought with.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Eureka please keep politics out of thread or it will be locked. ..






American by birth, Patriot by choice.

I would rather die standing on my two feet defending our Constitution than live a lifetime on my knees......

 

[Eureka!]

Eureka please keep politics out of thread or it will be locked. .. American by birth, Patriot by choice. I would rather die standing on my two feet defending our Constitution than live a lifetime on my knees......

Oh, sorry. I think that you are referring to the definition of "free." If I'm correct in my assumtion; It wasn't my intention to insert politics into the conversation.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Oh, sorry. I think that you are referring to the definition of "free." If I'm correct in my assumtion; It wasn't my intention to insert politics into the conversation.

Correct on the post, and although I agree it was still politics and not allowed, it still violates our rules...






American by birth, Patriot by choice.

I would rather die standing on my two feet defending our Constitution than live a lifetime on my knees......

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Ok- your correct in mentioning that it can be argued that we are "taking, destroying, and looting the past." BUT: RELICS and HISTORY of some of the Greatest Battles fought and Battle Fields of the Revolutionary War in NEW YORK are paved over with Buildings and Asphalt when they could be in showcases in schools and museums; educating the younger generation of the History of our Country. IMHO there's no LOGIC or VALUE in that argument. I watched one day in horror as a Backhoe was preparing a brook for precast cement troughs to be placed in so to reduce backups. As the operator was removing dirt from the bank of the stream I noticed (five ft down from street level) that he uncovered what appeared to be a full stack of dinner plates. I motioned for him to stop and he did. I yelled to him, "There's dishes there that you're going to destroy." He got down from the machine - he looked - and he got right back up in the box; waving his hand to me as if to say "F it." Good thing for him that no ARCHY was around - that would have ended his $38/hr. job for the day!

Eureka, here's my answer to this: There are times when some entity makes all their parks off-limits to detecting. Particularly at state or federal levels (but rarely ever county or city levels). And you're right: While this may be a commendable rule for sensitive historic monuments located within that state's parks system (some parks have a "historic" theme afterall), YET What possible frickin' harm could we do in the OTHER parks and beaches within that same entity's system ? Therefore, in your mind, you might agree with *some* places being preserved (shiloh, ghettysburg, bodie, etc...), yet you wonder why the utter waste in that ....... so too ....... do other places (innocuous beaches, modern clad and rings, etc...) get lumped under the same brush.

Or in your mind, if some place will be bulldozed to smithereens to make a library or a Walmart (hence destroying all "context") then what POSSIBLE harm can it do for a guy to ply the disturbed spoils after the workers have cut out for the day. Right?

And on the surface, everything you're saying makes perfect and total sense, and seems to fulfill their own stated reasons for denying md'ing.

HOWEVER, you must put yourself in their shoes. The best way I can put a face on that, is to bring you back-in-time 30+ yrs. ago, when the beginnings of all such things were getting started: There was a book put out, called "Treasure Laws of the United States", by a fellow named Doc R. Grimm It had all 50 states listed in alphabetic order, detailing what those state's laws were, for their state's parks (just state parks, not city or counties). The idea Grimm had was wonderful: the user merely flips to the state he's getting ready to travel to (like RV travellers going state-to-state, for instance), for immediate reference to yes, no, or other such details, rules, etc... Great idea, right? And when you turned to each state's page, Grimm had the re-printed xerox answer from those states, right on their own state's letterhead. Woohoo, now you just show that to any busy-body who approaches you, right? (can't argue with answers straight from the state's capitol, if they've said "yes", now can you?)

Here's how Grimm compiled his book: He merely sent off 50 xeroxed letters, to each of the state's capitols heads-of-state parks dept's, asking to the effect of: " What are the rules regarding the use of metal detectors in your state's state parks?" And on the surface, that too seems like the best way to go about it, right? I mean, doh, WHO BETTER to ask than the state's themselves right? Again, a marvelous idea, right?

And then Grimm would merely print each of the 50 replies in his book. But here's where it got ... uh ... interesting. While some might have said "go for it" or "no restrictions", etc... . Yet the vast majority were riddled with dire sounding restrictions, or out-right "no's". And oddly, some of those "no's" and/or dire-sounding-things states, were in states that .... quite frankly ....... up till then, you could detect their state parks, and no one had ever had a problem before! (barring obvious sensitive monuments or whatever).

So you put yourself in the shoes of the person on the receiving end of an inquiry like that Eureka, and be honest: What's the easy answer? Because in EVERY of the 50 states, there's bound to be *some* that are of a sensitive historic monument nature. RIGHT? (or golf courses, or something no one wants you tromping on, etc...). So think of it: there is simply NO WAY that person answering can go into super minute detail and say "yes at these 52, but no at these 8. And "yes at this one, but avoid the historic cabin on the north shore, stay back 20 ft. from the edges of that". And ...... you see how endless it is? So seriously now, what's the easy answer? NO. Then there's never anyone pushing the limits, or rationalizing "gee they're bulldozing it anyhow" or "gee this park is only 49 yrs. old" and so forth. Just endless semantics someone must deal with, so the much easier answer is "no". EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE RIGHT AND A WHOLE HOST OF PLACES IT WOULD DO NO HARM.

So in that case (using the Grimm's book evolution/story), where did the silly-ness begin ? WITH THE ASKING! I still remember that era (as I've been at this for 38+ yrs.) and you had old-timers scratching their heads saying to themselves "since when?". But putting yourself into some desk-bound bureaucrat's shoes, can you blame them ? No.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

OK - Tell that to you neighbor in this Video: http://news.yahoo.com/video/man-could-face-jail-time-182030850.html

Eureka, to me this doesn't discount what I've said. In THAT case, there WAS a rule to which the person could have availed himself of. And it didn't require asking someone "can I?" to find. And also, I see this man's case as exception or extreme. Even in the video, the commentator of the clip said it's not unusual to see hobbyists on the beaches their with metal detectors. The ONLY reason this man got flack, is ONLY because of the current bru-haha of how all the news cameras rushed out there during this drought, to show exposed ruins of a once colorful gold-rush era burg called Mormon Bar. That simply brought out every yahoo with their harbor freight detector. I mean, c'mon, they HAD to make an example of someone.

I'm not saying the charges won't stick. And I'm not saying that there isn't some cultural heritage things that can be thrown at him. I'm not saying "let's all go to Folsom lake now", etc... Sure, look up the laws for oneself. And sure, avoid obvious historic monuments and places under current scrutiny crawling with archies. But that's a long ways from "go grovel at every city hall you come to, begging for no's".

I do not see this fellow's isolated example as somehow meaning the sky if falling, "coming to a town near you", and go grovel everywhere. Sorry.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Postscript: And regarding your video link: did you see the detector the fellow was using? Please don't get this wrong (and if the fellow in that particular video clip is reading this, I do not mean this as a slam to you), but ........ again .... it's straight out of the pages of a harbor freight or radio shack catalog. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with those beginner cheapie model detectors mind you! (some may actually work quite well). But I'm just pointing out that the fellow was a beginner. I mean, seriously, no hardcore hunter (who can routinely 'bring in the silver' and has been at this for a long time), is caught dead using those models. So while, yes, they can find things, yet on the other hand, they're a dead-giveaway to a rogue beginner.

AS SUCH, I'm betting that he simply just doesn't know discretion. AGAIN THIS IS NO SLAM TO HIM (he's a beginner afterall, and we all had to start somewhere). But just pointing out, that he probably just didn't know that a) this is a state park afterall, b) this is stuff that currently in-the-news-bruhaha sensitive monument, etc..

He failed on numerous beginner mistakes, which would easily be recognizable to any long time T'net reader, any long time hunter or club member, etc... RIGHT?

I hunt with guys who are amongst the most hardcore brazen types around. Myself included. And we ROUTINELY hunt parks anywhere we come to, and do not run into the types things your video shows. Because we know when and where to go, how to not run around in neon orange with a giant "x" on your back, etc.... So again, a little "obviousness" goes a long ways. I do not see such videos as "the sky is falling", but instead as extremes, and avoiadable with a little discretion.

 

[Ripsaw]

Correct on the post, and although I agree it was still politics and not allowed, it still violates our rules...






American by birth, Patriot by choice.

I would rather die standing on my two feet defending our Constitution than live a lifetime on my knees......

I'm not trying to start any problems here, or challenge anyone's authority or motives, and I understand rules and the reason they are in place but I thought is was funny, and ironic, to see your post TH.

"No politics", ......then your signature lines,.... the first says to me...most americans or not all, are patriotic, I am........political

Second line covers dying and killing for beliefs in nothing more than four pieces of paper that have no proof they apply to anyone, and mentions slavery........political.

Third line is about rights and voting........political.

Fourth line, about freedom and slavery......political.

Fifth line, liberty and freedom statements and taking a swipe at unjust laws that would abrogate the supposed rights, that the four pieces of paper called the constitution supposedly give you.......definately political.

Little known fact, the constitution was giving the rights, to bear arms and others, to former slaves, not free people that were now sovereigns after the war for independence. They always had the right from birth, and needed no paper to let them know they did, it was god given according to them. The declaration even says in it, that each and every man has the same powers the king had before, all were now sovereign. A sovereign man has nobody that can tell him anything, he is the king of his world, they make the rules they live by, usually based on their own morality, what is right and wrong in their own minds. They make the laws for themselves, not for anyone else to live by, because they are all equal. First, do no harm to others.

In a perfect world and society, man has 100% control over "his own life", and his actions, and control and responsibilities thereof, and 0 % control over "others lives". That is called a voluntary society. All business dealings and contracts to be done on a voluntary basis from person to person. if you don't wish to do business with the people that would write insane laws on paper, just ignore them and go on about your business, that's voluntary and the only true freedom, freedom to choose, anything other than that is slavery, plain and simple. You are being forced to do something you don't want to do, that's not freedom at all.

In this type society, you need not worry about such things as this thread title and laws that are made up by others that would discourage metal detecting or anything else, because they have no control over what you do, you are the responsible person. If you do harm to another, or their property while hunting treasure, it's your responsibility to make it right, not someone else.

Anyway, I hope I didn't get too political and tried to stay on topic with the thread, because after all, it is "All political", every last thing about it is. The minute you bring up laws....you are smack in the middle of politics, period. Without politicians, there would be no laws to worry about.

Personally, and as I said, I understand why the rules are in place, but I can't make any sense out of how one would even treasure hunt without bringing laws and politics into the discussions here, it's impossible to do and do it right without politics, not to mention the education most would get from the truth being told.

 

[Eureka!]

Eureka, to me this doesn't discount what I've said. In THAT case, there WAS a rule to which the person could have availed himself of. And it didn't require asking someone "can I?" to find. And also, I see this man's case as exception or extreme. Even in the video, the commentator of the clip said it's not unusual to see hobbyists on the beaches their with metal detectors. The ONLY reason this man got flack, is ONLY because of the current bru-haha of how all the news cameras rushed out there during this drought, to show exposed ruins of a once colorful gold-rush era burg called Mormon Bar. That simply brought out every yahoo with their harbor freight detector. I mean, c'mon, they HAD to make an example of someone. I'm not saying the charges won't stick. And I'm not saying that there isn't some cultural heritage things that can be thrown at him. I'm not saying "let's all go to Folsom lake now", etc... Sure, look up the laws for oneself. And sure, avoid obvious historic monuments and places under current scrutiny crawling with archies. But that's a long ways from "go grovel at every city hall you come to, begging for no's". I do not see this fellow's isolated example as somehow meaning the sky if falling, "coming to a town near you", and go grovel everywhere. Sorry.

TOM - Let me preface this with that in no way is the following meant to attack your school of thought or you the person. (take note TreasureHunter) All in fun.

WELCOME TO TOM_in_CA's Ninja Metal Detecting Dojo

Despite many popular folktales, historical accounts of any Tom NINJA Detectorists are scarce. It is asserted that the ninja detectorists were recruited from the lower class and therefore little literary interest was taken in them. Instead, relic hunt epics focused mainly on the aristocratic Samurai detectorist whose deeds were apparently more appealing to the viewers of a well know TV show know as "Diggers.". Tom's Ninja detectorists were trained to be particularly secretive about there actions and their existence.

Tom_in_CA 's so called ninijustu detecting techniques, in short are skills of aims of ensuring that ones opponent (Park Rangers, Archy's Law Enforcement Types and any other full time busy-body's) does not know of ones existence. Assimilate it to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell. and the motto is: I don't know nothing about nothing."

At Tom's, you'll learn the latest techniques like: ESPIONAGE (gathering information before the Hunt), SABOTAGE (Huh? what no trespassing sign are you talking about), COUNTERMEASURES (there's more ways than one to skin a cat), and SURVIVAL SKILLS (free fake nose and eyeglasses given with every sign-up-just in case you need them) and EQUIPMENT (Clip on Belt Control Box, Ear-buds and Hiking boots with built-in Double-D Coils).

Tom- I get your drift. Don't wake the sleeping lions.

 

[Eureka!]

Eureka, here's my answer to this: There are times when some entity makes all their parks off-limits to detecting. Particularly at state or federal levels (but rarely ever county or city levels). And you're right: While this may be a commendable rule for sensitive historic monuments located within that state's parks system (some parks have a "historic" theme afterall), YET What possible frickin' harm could we do in the OTHER parks and beaches within that same entity's system ? Therefore, in your mind, you might agree with *some* places being preserved (shiloh, ghettysburg, bodie, etc...), yet you wonder why the utter waste in that ....... so too ....... do other places (innocuous beaches, modern clad and rings, etc...) get lumped under the same brush. Or in your mind, if some place will be bulldozed to smithereens to make a library or a Walmart (hence destroying all "context") then what POSSIBLE harm can it do for a guy to ply the disturbed spoils after the workers have cut out for the day. Right? And on the surface, everything you're saying makes perfect and total sense, and seems to fulfill their own stated reasons for denying md'ing. HOWEVER, you must put yourself in their shoes. The best way I can put a face on that, is to bring you back-in-time 30+ yrs. ago, when the beginnings of all such things were getting started: There was a book put out, called "Treasure Laws of the United States", by a fellow named Doc R. Grimm It had all 50 states listed in alphabetic order, detailing what those state's laws were, for their state's parks (just state parks, not city or counties). The idea Grimm had was wonderful: the user merely flips to the state he's getting ready to travel to (like RV travellers going state-to-state, for instance), for immediate reference to yes, no, or other such details, rules, etc... Great idea, right? And when you turned to each state's page, Grimm had the re-printed xerox answer from those states, right on their own state's letterhead. Woohoo, now you just show that to any busy-body who approaches you, right? (can't argue with answers straight from the state's capitol, if they've said "yes", now can you?) Here's how Grimm compiled his book: He merely sent off 50 xeroxed letters, to each of the state's capitols heads-of-state parks dept's, asking to the effect of: " What are the rules regarding the use of metal detectors in your state's state parks?" And on the surface, that too seems like the best way to go about it, right? I mean, doh, WHO BETTER to ask than the state's themselves right? Again, a marvelous idea, right? And then Grimm would merely print each of the 50 replies in his book. But here's where it got ... uh ... interesting. While some might have said "go for it" or "no restrictions", etc... . Yet the vast majority were riddled with dire sounding restrictions, or out-right "no's". And oddly, some of those "no's" and/or dire-sounding-things states, were in states that .... quite frankly ....... up till then, you could detect their state parks, and no one had ever had a problem before! (barring obvious sensitive monuments or whatever). So you put yourself in the shoes of the person on the receiving end of an inquiry like that Eureka, and be honest: What's the easy answer? Because in EVERY of the 50 states, there's bound to be *some* that are of a sensitive historic monument nature. RIGHT? (or golf courses, or something no one wants you tromping on, etc...). So think of it: there is simply NO WAY that person answering can go into super minute detail and say "yes at these 52, but no at these 8. And "yes at this one, but avoid the historic cabin on the north shore, stay back 20 ft. from the edges of that". And ...... you see how endless it is? So seriously now, what's the easy answer? NO. Then there's never anyone pushing the limits, or rationalizing "gee they're bulldozing it anyhow" or "gee this park is only 49 yrs. old" and so forth. Just endless semantics someone must deal with, so the much easier answer is "no". EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE RIGHT AND A WHOLE HOST OF PLACES IT WOULD DO NO HARM. So in that case (using the Grimm's book evolution/story), where did the silly-ness begin ? WITH THE ASKING! I still remember that era (as I've been at this for 38+ yrs.) and you had old-timers scratching their heads saying to themselves "since when?". But putting yourself into some desk-bound bureaucrat's shoes, can you blame them ? No.

Eureka, to me this doesn't discount what I've said. In THAT case, there WAS a rule to which the person could have availed himself of. And it didn't require asking someone "can I?" to find. And also, I see this man's case as exception or extreme. Even in the video, the commentator of the clip said it's not unusual to see hobbyists on the beaches their with metal detectors. The ONLY reason this man got flack, is ONLY because of the current bru-haha of how all the news cameras rushed out there during this drought, to show exposed ruins of a once colorful gold-rush era burg called Mormon Bar. That simply brought out every yahoo with their harbor freight detector. I mean, c'mon, they HAD to make an example of someone. I'm not saying the charges won't stick. And I'm not saying that there isn't some cultural heritage things that can be thrown at him. I'm not saying "let's all go to Folsom lake now", etc... Sure, look up the laws for oneself. And sure, avoid obvious historic monuments and places under current scrutiny crawling with archies. But that's a long ways from "go grovel at every city hall you come to, begging for no's". I do not see this fellow's isolated example as somehow meaning the sky if falling, "coming to a town near you", and go grovel everywhere. Sorry.

TOM - Let me preface this with that in no way is the following meant to attack your school of thought or you the person. (take note TreasureHunter) All in fun.

WELCOME TO TOM_in_CA's Ninja Metal Detecting Dojo

Despite many popular folktales, historical accounts of any Tom NINJA Detectorists are scarce. It is asserted that the ninja detectorists were recruited from the lower class and therefore little literary interest was taken in them. Instead, relic hunt epics focused mainly on the aristocratic Samurai detectorist whose deeds were apparently more appealing to the viewers of a well know TV show know as "Diggers.". Tom's Ninja detectorists were trained to be particularly secretive about there actions and their existence.

Tom_in_CA 's so called ninijustu detecting techniques, in short are skills of aims of ensuring that ones opponent (Park Rangers, Archy's Law Enforcement Types and any other full time busy-body's) does not know of ones existence. Assimilate it to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell. and the motto is: I don't know nothing about nothing."

At Tom's, you'll learn the latest techniques like: ESPIONAGE (gathering information before the Hunt), SABOTAGE (Huh? what no trespassing sign are you talking about), COUNTERMEASURES (there's more ways than one to skin a cat), and SURVIVAL SKILLS (free fake nose and eyeglasses given with every sign-up-just in case you need them) and EQUIPMENT (Clip on Belt Control Box, Ear-buds and Hiking boots with built-in Double-D Coils).

Tom- I get your drift. Don't wake the sleeping lions.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Ripsaw it can he discussed as to how it directly relates to treasure hunting. Attacks on parties or politicians crosses the line into the politics that is no longer allowed....


What your referring to is my signature, it is not a post or thread....






American by birth, Patriot by choice.

I would rather die standing on my two feet defending our Constitution than live a lifetime on my knees......

 

[cudamark]

I mean, seriously, do you think Shiloh, Ghettysburg, and Bodie should just be opened up nilly willy to all of us yahoos, just because Eureka says it's violiating his consitutional freedoms?
If the archies did their job, why not? There shouldn't be anything to find right? Maybe offer a good reward for something they missed and you turn in.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... Tom- I get your drift. Don't wake the sleeping lions.

haha, great post Eureka, I'm still smiling ear-to-ear. Yup, ninja. There simply HAS to be some middle ground between:

a) wearing a neon orange suit (with bellbottoms and platform shoes), swinging a detector, waltzing through a ball-game and over beach blankets at an archie convention. Then wondering "gee, why isn't everyone here happy to see me?" "Gee, why am I in trouble?".

To the other extreme:

b) night-sneaking places with clear distinct laws that specifically say "no metal detecting". Dodging night-patrol rangers, hopping fences, etc...

To the middle ground:

c) places that don't necessarily have clear rules, but instead only the usual disturbance, alteration, deface, cultural heritage, etc... type stuff that someone *could* morph to apply. Then in those cases, sure, avoid such "sleeping lions" and ... geee, everyone's happy, eh?

Yes, that leaves a LOT of what ifs and endless middle ground. And yes, perhaps some people simply don't like hunting at night, or wondering which approaching person is that "sleeping lion" (don't swat hornet's nests), versus the lookie-lou who is just going to ask "hey mister, what's the best thing you've ever found?"

There's not an exact science to the above "discreet" rule. Yes I can see how some people interpret that as "blatantly ignore laws, and sneak into ghettysburg" (option B). While others see it as more like option (c) (don't make waves and bother the wrong people).

Anyhow, I got a good laugh at this post. A label I'll gladly wear: Ninja . Neon orange bell-bottom leisure suits don't look good on me afterall

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I mean, seriously, do you think Shiloh, Ghettysburg, and Bodie should just be opened up nilly willy to all of us yahoos, just because Eureka says it's violiating his consitutional freedoms? If the archies did their job, why not? There shouldn't be anything to find right? Maybe offer a good reward for something they missed and you turn in.

Hey cudamark, this brought to mind a true story I read on an md'ing forum years back: A newbie md'r actually thought that would be a great opening line. A way to get permission to hunt some sort of pristine super sensitive historic monument (Bodie or something like that). So the md'er toured the on-site grounds museum, and struck up conversation with the attendant/docent on duty. The museum worker was friendly, happy, and eager to talk history with the museum visitor.

Then they got to the part of the conversation where .... the md'r asked if he could metal detect the grounds, provided he donate all his finds to the museum. The museum worker turned 180* in attitude with shrieks of "nneeeoohhhh". ...... All smiles and friendliness gone. The only way the poor md'r could describe the demeanor change of the museum worker, was to say:

"You'd have thought I just asked him if I could sleep with his wife".

haha, anyhow, your post brought that humorous story to mind

 

[Sir Gala Clad]

“Just Do It”
Clarification and standardization will result in further restrictions. Think about it: “Laws/rules are seldom written to enable – they are written to restrict/prevent.
In my opinion, there is a fatal flaw in this thread.
It is the assumption that if you follow every law, rule, policy, whatever – you will not get into trouble, your equipment will not be taken away, there will be no fines,
You do not have to worry about going to jail. “Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong (at least in my case).
We do not live in a perfect world not even close.
Good luck on getting your equipment back, if it is taken
(Rightfully or wrongly).
Think of it as if you were driving your car:
“It is better to be Live Wrong than Dead Right”!

Eureka, if this is a true statement, then ALL THE MORE REASON to simply go DO IT, without asking anyone or worry about supposed rules and laws. I mean, if it's as you say, and "inconsistent" from dept. to dept. (rules which may or may not be construed to actually mean or say no detecting), then .... in my mind, how can you be held accountable ? If what you're saying is true, that there is "grey areas", then seems to me the worst you can get is a "scram" and be "alerted". Therefore, no, I will NOT go seeking clarification on the very things you admit yourself, can be interpretted several different ways. Why? Lest I run up against the "no one cared till you asked" psychology.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

“Just Do It” Clarification and standardization will result in further restrictions....

Gala clad, I agree with the end-part of your post, where you say that even someone knocking themselves silly to "keep all the rules" (and goes and even gets themselves "permission" from city hall, etc...) still has no gaurantee that someone else won't come up and hop their case, get them in trouble, etc..... There's been actual cases of that related on forums, where .... someone proudly and happily whips out their "permission" (or name-to-drop, etc...) only to get it promptly revoked, or worse.

But as for the above quote, I'm not so sure I agree with that. Well, yes and no. Because think of it:

In the case of "just do it", if someone WERE to chance-upon-the-scene who "didn't like it", and then jumps yours or my's case, then ....... think of it: If that WERE the case (which I guess you're thinking "leads to restrictions & laws" because the person "just did it" ?) then .. ok, let's rehearse that: We'll call the person who chanced on you in the field "Bob". Ok, so here's the scenarios:

a) someone just helps themselves, yet gets booted by "Bob".

b) Versus someone who took what you're saying to heart (afterall, no one "wants more restrictions") and so he goes in to city hall before hand, to talk to "Bob".

c) BUT WAIT, we already know that "Bob", if he were the type person to "not like it" , then seriously, what do you think "Bob's" answer is going to be ? Of course it will be "no". Because remember, if (a) had happened, the md'r would have got booted in the field. They only boot you if the DON'T like the activity. So why are you or I to think that this reality is in any way changed by going in there ahead of time talking to "Bob" ?

Thus no, no new restrictions or laws are necessarily put on to detecting, that weren't already of the mindset or weren't already in rules (that could be morphed) to begin with. If "Bob" didn't like it, then "Bob" already didn't like it. The only thing my going in and asking first did, was to go out of my way to meet Bob, and hear his princely verdict, before I even start. If "Bob" is only 1 in 100,000 in that city that cares less, why would I go out of my way to bring about this encounter ? Rather, odds are, I'll never run into "Bob".

To the extreme extent what you're saying *might* be true in some cases (someone who was more than willing to say "sure help yourself", yet ... oddly, will boot and create laws if he saw someone else doing it), here's my answer to that:

Any such scenario, IMHO, is more than outweighed by restrictions and policies and laws that get created when md'rs go in asking "can I detect?" in places where they'd likely have just been ignored and un-noticed. This repeats itself over and over, where md'rs run into the "no one cared till you asked" psychology. So I see the opposite of what you're saying, as being the reality: that it's not often the LACK of asking that brings about rules, but it's the ASKING that's bringing about rules, no's, restrictions and so forth.

 

[Eureka!]

ANYONE FROM THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION (NRA) OUT THERE?........

Is there anyone that is "high up there" in the NRA would could help Metal Detectorists by forming a METAL DETECTOR RIGHTS GROUP modeled off of the NRA?

-OR-

Does such a Group exist already?