reply
".....do you really think that would've happened back in the 70s?"
If that law existed back in the '70s, then I suppose that, yes, it "
would have happened".
Then you bring up a very interesting and "telling" point Buck. You say:
"If you park your moped on the sidewalk, it might be ok. If everyone parks their moped on the sidewalk, then there's a problem, right?"
This is a very good analogy, on several fronts. I get your drift entirely. It's a good analogy! I guess you are making the analogy that the persons "parking mopeds" are to be analogous to "md'r hobbyists" right? And whereas one person parking a moped on the sidewalk no one cares or notices, right? But if TWENTY people park their mopeds on the sidewalk, .... then alas, someone in the city thinks "gee, they're blocking the sidewalks so pedestrians can't get by", or "gee, I wonder if those mopeds drip oil, which stain the sidewalk?" etc.... And sure enough, they can probably go into existing city codes, and finds things that "prohibit blocking sidewalks", or say that sidewalks are "only for pedestrians, not motorized vehicles", and so forth. And your example is an excellent one! I am going to borrow it, if you don't mind, for the future when this issue comes up
Because in that example, you and I can both clearly see that "in the '70s", the person got away with parking his moped on the sidewalk EVEN though there might TECHNICALLY have been something that made it illegal. But REALISTICALLY, no one cared back then, because there was only 1 moped, and ...... no one connected the dots for such trivial things, as it wasn't an issue, or *really* blocking anything, and so forth.
Ok, let me take a stab at this illustration: Yes, you're right, anytime one person does something perhaps he's ignored as innocuous and harmless. But sure, if 20 persons do the same thing, in the same baseball field, then someone's going to slow down, look, and think to themselves "
gee, what are those guys doing?" and "
Is it a club or a demonstration or something? " and
"gee, I wonder if that will harm the grass?" and "
gee, is that allowed?" etc... Notice that the ONLY thing that psychologically changed in the two scenarios is NOT the activity involved (metal detecting or moped parking). It was the NUMBER of participants, right?
Thus what do we do? We certainly can't tell everyone who got into detecting since 1985, that they are not entitled to continue detecting, right? We certainly can't tell minelab, whites, fisher and garret, to sell only 200 machines each per year, then stop production, right? Then what is the solution?
You will notice that .... if you've ever read my posts (rants) long enough, that I often stress that we keep a low profile, go at low traffic times, avoid lookie-lous, etc... Because while there may not be a *specific* rule, yet someone will come along and morph something to apply, if you and/or I are "eyesores".
Also, notice in the moped example, that even back in 1970, you acknowledge that no one cared if the moped driver parked on the sidewalk, right? BUT WAIT: if that moped driver had gone into city hall, asking permission to park his moped on the sidewalk, then .... he would indeed have gotten some "no's", from certain/various cities, right? I mean, if he asks (and even though it's not going to be 20 mopeds), someone could have sleuthed through some city verbage, and found something that would be interpretted to apply, and told him "no". I mean, sure, realistically, only applied or morphed when someone's doing damage, or being a nuisance, or on a complaint type basis, but that technically, if you asked, could apply.
Thus EVEN TODAY, in places that have no prohibitions, and where "20 md'rs have not gathered", a SINGLE md'r can still find himself "no's", in places that have no such specific rules. There's been many examples of places getting "no's", with only a single md'r. And it wasn't because there were 20 md'rs, it only takes one, to go and ask "can I?"
So while there's nothing we can do to roll back the clock to the 1970s # of hobbyists, yet we can spread the word to folks now, to not LOOK like "20 hobbyists" (ie.: don't go making yourself a big red X at high traffic times waltzing over beach blankets, in need of scrutiny), and Look up the rules for yourself. Don't go asking "can I?". Because just like that singular moped driver in 1970, the only reason he didn't get a "no", is because he didn't ask. The same psychology holds true for the singular md'r, both THEN and NOW.
But yes, this is easier said that done. I realize it's almost practically impossible to "be invisible". Much easier to "be invisible" back in the 1970s, when there were so much fewer of us, that we were indeed thought of as harmless, innocent, etc.... (simply on the basis that it wasn't a common site). So there are some aspects of your illustration that do indeed hold truths that are a problem, simply by their very nature. But there are other sides of your illustration, that CAN be brought in under control, if some of us would use a bit of common sense.
