City of Reno vs Sparks Nevada.

[Tom_in_CA]

I apologize for not answering immediately as you had hoped. This is a Sparks city ordinance that I looked up on their website. It's a PDF file that anybody can access. Hopefully this answers your question. I'm not hiding anything, nor am I'm making this up for grins and giggles!

thanx for replying. As I had said : It might be an actual rule, that truly said "no md'ing" in muni-park-ordinance.

As for the REASON such a rule might be in a particular city (Sparks in this case), you say:

"Previous irresponsible detectorists tearing the ground up and leaving trash is precisely the reason that this ridiculous ordinance was enacted."

Curious how you came to this conclusion ? It's possible that if you asked the powers-that-be , in Sparks: "Why?", they might indeed say "because of holes". To which you mutter under your breath: "Durned those md'rs who left holes", right ?

But don't be so quick to assume that's really the reason. Often time it's merely the mental connotation of the MERE SIGHT of a "man with a detector". That "oh no, he might leave holes". WHETHER OR NOT ANYONE EVER ACTUALLY DID. Or someone before goes in and asks "permission" . Some envisions geeks with shovels leaving holes, and invent a rule to "address this pressing issue". And attributes it to "holes" as the "go-to" reason to justify the rule they just invented. And sure, they'll say 'because of holes'. Even if they never actually saw any. Just the mental connotation, or having seen someone stoop down and poke the ground, they can just naturally assume "holes". Even if the md'r never left any.

I've seen this happen before, where NO ONE can cite any such incident, despite the claim of "holes".

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tiredman]

Too bad that other thread got closed.

 

[Tiredman]

Leaving trash? Maybe the lawn crew hit something with the mower sending deadly canslaw flying at homeless people.

 

[Battleborn_JKU]

I was under the impression Sparks didn’t require a permit? I don’t know if I’m going to ask or just do!

It's a City of Sparks municipal code.

 

[Clay Diggins]

City of Sparks Municipal Code

Section 12.24.075 - Metal detectors prohibited without a permit.
A.
It is unlawful for any person to possess or operate a metal detector within any city park without first having obtained a permit from the director of the department of parks and recreation or designee.

B.
A permit to possess or operate a metal detector in a city park may be issued by the director of the department of parks and recreation or designee upon such terms and conditions as the director may deem advisable. Each such permit shall carry an expiration date and shall specifically state the location(s), date(s) and time(s) such possession or operation is allowed.

(Ord. 2545, § 6, Add, 10/23/2017)

Finding that was a lot easier than spending three days questioning the original poster as to whether it was really true that a permit was required.

Better to look it up than to rely on rumor. Do the research before you detect, your detecting days will be more productive and a lot less stressful.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

City of Sparks Municipal Code....

This is a testament that .... with today's internet age, that anyone can look up laws/rules for themselves. So as not to be caught in whimsical arbitrary decisions to silly questions.

As for this particular rule, in this particular place : I have a suspicion as to how it got on the books.