kayakpat
Hero Member
- Mar 31, 2013
- 557
- 280
- Detector(s) used
- Bounty Hunter
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
claiming ignorance of the law is not a defense
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
no matter if it is private property or public or corporations, property has a owner, or a authority in charge of property has the same rights to ban or allow any action to the property they are in charge of. Geez, you do not have that right of determination
You do not have the authority to stop someone from quoting posts that you put on the open forum. You've been warned about the troll remark. Later......
The article certainly doesn't mention anything about improper metal detecting or illegal detecting. If I am reading between the lines correctly I would say that improper detecting had nothing to do with the ban but rather someone kissing up to the powers-to-be and once again a ban is in place because someone did that. When will some ever learn ?
I agree, when will some learn......?The article certainly doesn't mention anything about improper metal detecting or illegal detecting. If I am reading between the lines correctly I would say that improper detecting had nothing to do with the ban but rather someone kissing up to the powers-to-be and once again a ban is in place because someone did that. When will some ever learn ?
....... It seems that a quick google search confirms that it is indeed off limits. Yet somehow those pre existing regulations were caused by people asking permission. ....
... Yet somehow those pre existing regulations were caused by people asking permission......
.... When you can cite a specific example where asking permission led to a place becoming off limits then we can talk. .....
no matter if it is private property or public or corporations, property has a owner, or a authority in charge of property has the same rights to ban or allow any action to the property they are in charge of. Geez, you do not have that right of determination
My comment was in reference to Tom's post that I quoted. I did not say it was blamed on people asking permission so that statement does not relate to me. Everyone should know State and Federal law and abide by those as I've said in reference to them. Here in Missouri State parks do allow metal detecting on certain beaches. Some of our parks are restricted to protect what the State considers artifacts and some are restricted to prevent damage to the park alone. A person might be able to detect other areas in the parks that are restricted because of the damage issue if they get approval from the Park Ranger. I doubt the Park Ranger would have the authority to allow detecting other areas on the ones restricted because of artifact issues. This shows why I encourage others to know the law and also know that it is not always as simple as reading that law and considering a site lost. City parks are more commonly under Codes,Ordinances and Policys etc. There is room for discretion on those and people should know the difference between a law and a code,for instance, and should not think they need permission to detect a park that is not clearly restricted in a code. Those in authority can better make a decision on whether or not to let someone detect if they see how they are doing it. They do not have to make that decision without doing that but some have by posting and writing clear rules into codes and those we must obey as well as the authority that we may encounter in the field.
The article certainly doesn't mention anything about improper metal detecting or illegal detecting. If I am reading between the lines correctly I would say that improper detecting had nothing to do with the ban but rather someone kissing up to the powers-to-be and once again a ban is in place because someone did that. When will some ever learn ?
I would say that improper detecting had nothing to do with the ban but rather someone kissing up to the powers-to-be and once again a ban is in place because someone did that. When will some ever learn ?
Tom, your the OP, you posted the link as the example, kemper attacked the hunters who asked about hunting a State Park.......Both you and Kemper are saying it was the fault of the people who asked about hunting.hey guys, I think this got ship-wrecked. While the notion/topic of the genesis of places dreaming up a "no md'ing" rule is a valid one, for conversation, yet THIS opening example link, did NOT show that. So therefore, everything hereafter, keeps going back to the particular link failing to show that.
So if the subject of "when we need to ask permission" is going to be talked about, it can not be talked about in context of that link. Alright already. It's the "achilles heel". Kemper is wanting to therefore switch to the "general" topic, yet, sluice and others are seeing this "achilles heel" that the OP link doesn't apply.
Beep, beep, beep.... [emoji597] ---->Not backing up at all and I will stand by my statements. Reading between the lines (as Tom asked) I'm thinking the Archies kissed up to the powers -to-be and that is why metal detecting is banned. Nice try but when we make assumptions as to what someone said, instead of asking them when we don't know ,we could get the wrong picture. Tom asked to read between the lines on his post. I did not ask that of mine.
Tom, your the OP, you posted the link as the example, kemper attacked the hunters who asked about hunting a State Park.......Both you and Kemper are saying it was the fault of the people who asked about hunting.
Members post count and admins/mods post count are not the same, we still see all posts included deleted posts and they are still visible and numbered.My comment was not in reference to that . My comment was in reference to what Tom posted. I stand by my comment. Reading between the lines I think the Archies got detecting banned in the area Tom referenced. They might be the reason for Ga. State Park bans as a whole too. I hope you understood my clarification in post # 73.
Corrrect. And it's falling apart because the very link I used to open it up for discussion, it turned out, did/does not support that. Oh sure, we can all muse as to why their rule ever started years prior to that, (ie.: turn it in to a GENERAL conversation on the issue), but that turns into a train-wreck. Because ........ that would need to be ANOTHER thread, not THIS one. Doh!
So Kemper, Sluice, etc... I , as the OP here, recant this particular thread. Thanx for chiming in. Thanx for showing how the article wasn't a good example, etc.... No need for y'all to go at each other's throats. It's just discussion, and nothing personal.
In reference to what I highlighted above ,that to me is like saying " Don't detect in the park because if you do, metal detecting might be banned there" That's what it sounds like to me, but you may mean something else.