apparently no one is allowed to enjoy our local parks...

[caheaton]

Just looked over the rules for my local county's parks, if one interprets the rules literally, the park can't be used at all! Here are the first two rules:


"1.1 No person shall remove from a park any property, natural feature or part thereof, including but not limited to, any building, equipment, sign, rock, stone, mineral formation, earth, wood, tree, shrub, flower, plant, nut, or other seed without a permit from the Director.


1.2 No person shall injure, destroy, break, cut, chop, write upon, mutilate, set fire to, deface, dig, paint, or damage in any manner any property, natural feature or part thereof, including but not limited to, any building, equipment, sign, rock, stone, mineral formation, earth, wood, tree, shrub, flower or plant of the park."


Woe be to a child who picks up an acorn! Or steps on the grass. Using the baseball diamond, you better not scuff the dirt. Fortunately, I've metal detected in them without incident....
However, they have a tax levy on this year's ballot. I was going to vote yes on it, but after reading these rules I just may vote no (and send them a letter explaining why).


This is what happens when attorneys set park rules....they make them so broad that the parks commission can pretty much dictate what, how and when the people (who own the park) can do....

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Chug And Red]

I Do not See A Problem Just Dig Good Plugs Don t Cause Damage Don't remove Plants Or Dirt Wash All Finds Before Moving them HH Chug


Similar Rules here Just How You Deal With The People Who Come Up And Ask Questions Cops, Mayor City Counsel Members Etc. Just Say Show Me where I Have Been And Prove It to Then Some times You Dig A Bad Plug Most Of the Time You Can Cover it Up Know One Would Know You Were There

 

[ironman123]

Some of these ordinances and laws are written without any forethought whatsoever. It is all left to the park officials and/or commissioners to say yea or nay.

 

[tcornel]

God forbid any sports team practicing there with spikes on their shoes. Especially football.

 

[Peyton Manning]

do you really think any cop knows that?
if no one calls in you are golden

 

[Tom_in_CA]

All those things are boilerplate rules for any part in any city across the USA. And I do not construe any of them to mean: " no metal detecting".

If you leave no trace of your presence, then logically you have not InjurED, destroyED, or mutilatED anything. And as far as the list of items that you are forbidden to harvest or remove, I do not see coins in that list, haha

This is not to say that everyone on Earth will agree with these semantics. If so, I just avoid those type of busybodies and go at lower traffic times. Do not ask any City person for permission lest you bump into the: "No one cared TILL you asked " psychology.

 

[Loco-Digger]

We have the same ordinances in the town where I live in Ohio. Out of the 7 police officers, 6 have driven up see I am cutting good plugs and simply ask if I am finding anything. Only one has ever made an issue. I still hunt the park on occasion since they hold several activities throughout the year. Just be a great ambassador of the hobby, dig undetectable plugs and you should not have an issue.

 

[Sandman]

I try not to dig any plugs at all and use a screwdriver to pop shallow coins out. Besides knees won't allow me to bend.

 

[Deft Tones]

I don't see any prohibitions there that a metal detectorist should be concerned with... unless you're doing those things listed instead of metal detecting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_meaning_rule

To avoid ambiguity, legislatures often include "definitions" sections within a statute, which explicitly define the most important terms used in that statute.[3] But some statutes omit a definitions section entirely, or (more commonly) fail to define a particular term. The plain meaning rule attempts to guide courts faced with litigation that turns on the meaning of a term not defined by the statute, or on that of a word found within a definition itself.

According to the plain meaning rule, absent a contrary definition within the statute, words must be given their plain, ordinary and literal meaning. If the words are clear, they must be applied, even though the intention of the legislator may have been different or the result is harsh or undesirable. The literal rule is what the law says instead of what the law was intended to say.

Prof. Larry Solum expands on this premise:

Some laws are meant for all citizens (e.g., criminal statutes) and some are meant only for specialists (e.g., some sections of the tax code). A text that means one thing in a legal context, might mean something else if it were in a technical manual or a novel. So the plain meaning of a legal text is something like the meaning that would be understood by competent speakers of the natural language in which the text was written who are within the intended readership of the text and who understand that the text is a legal text of a certain type.[4]

Soft Plain Meaning Rule[edit]
Justices normally impose an absurdity limit on this rule, which states that a statute cannot be interpreted literally if it would lead to an absurd result. In the US Supreme Court Chung Fook v. White (1924) marked the beginning of the looser American Rule that the intent of the law was more important than its text.

This is sometimes termed the soft plain meaning rule, where the statute is interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of the language, unless the result would be cruel or absurd. For example, see Rector, Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892). Even the most vocal supporters of textualism and the plain meaning rule have been willing to commute "strict" plain meaning to "soft" plain meaning to a certain extent, in some circumstances; see, e.g. United States v. X-Citement Video, 513 U.S. 64 (1994) (Scalia, J., dissenting):

I have been willing, in the case of civil statutes, to acknowledge a doctrine of "scrivener's error" that permits a court to give an unusual (though not unheard-of) meaning to a word which, if given its normal meaning, would produce an absurd and arguably unconstitutional result.

Doctrine of Absurdity[edit]
Further information: Doctrine of Absurdity and Strict Constructionism
In law, strictly literal interpretations of statutes can lead to seemingly absurd results. The Doctrine of Absurdity holds that commonsense interpretations should be preferred in such cases, rather than literal readings. Under the Absurdity doctrine, American courts have interpreted statutes contrary to their plain meaning in order to avoid absurd legal conclusions.[5][6][7] It is contrasted with literalism.[8]

The common sense of man approves the judgment mentioned by Pufendorf [sic. Puffendorf], that the Bolognian law which enacted ‘that whoever drew blood in the streets should be punished with the utmost severity’, did not extend to the surgeon who opened the vein of a person that fell down in the street in a fit. The same common sense accepts the ruling, cited by Plowden, that the statute of 1st Edward II, which enacts that a prisoner who breaks prison shall be guilty of a felony, does not extend to a prisoner who breaks out when the prison is on fire – ‘for he is not to be hanged because he would not stay to be burnt’.[9]

 

[Deft Tones]

We have the same ordinances in the town where I live in Ohio. Out of the 7 police officers, 6 have driven up see I am cutting good plugs and simply ask if I am finding anything. Only one has ever made an issue. I still hunt the park on occasion since they hold several activities throughout the year. Just be a great ambassador of the hobby, dig undetectable plugs and you should not have an issue.

Yep. I've had them sit in their car eating lunch 30' from me while I worked-over the bathroom/fountain areas. Not a peep. Just a wave as they left.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Yep. I've had them sit in their car eating lunch 30' from me while I worked-over the bathroom/fountain areas. Not a peep. Just a wave as they left.

aaahhhh, you might *think* that's an implicit permission or an implicit "ok". Right ? But on the contrary: It only means you didn't approach their sqaud cars and ask for their permission . And in asking for their permission, if you'd used the words "dig", and "holes" and "lawsuit", and "indian bone" and "treasure", I bet that those guys who paid you no mind .... WOULD INDEED have told you "no". Hence, hurry, go back to those officer's and ask. Afterall, you can't be too safe !

 

[Deft Tones]

aaahhhh, you might *think* that's an implicit permission or an implicit "ok". Right ? But on the contrary: It only means you didn't approach their sqaud cars and ask for their permission . And in asking for their permission, if you'd used the words "dig", and "holes" and "lawsuit", and "indian bone" and "treasure", I bet that those guys who paid you no mind .... WOULD INDEED have told you "no". Hence, hurry, go back to those officer's and ask. Afterall, you can't be too safe !

Whatever it is it's good enough for me!

 

[Honest Samuel]

I am outrage that people cannot pick nuts and perhaps fruit to feed their family. Of course, I am outrage when there are beaches and parks, that we cannot go treasure hunting. Good hunting and good luck.

 

[Chug And Red]

Red and I Hunted A School today Cop was in His Car While we were Getting our Gear on He was watching us No Problems Just Got out Once And Smiled Then Hes Got A Call And Scrammed Out

 

[Back-of-the-boat]

There is only one park by me that can't be detected as it is a World Heritage site.Other than that No issues ever and I have seen those rules in parks around me.Those rules are mainly against people vandalizing the parks and thieves stealing shrubs or trees.The park workers are always more interested in the hobby than anything else with me.Even had a supervisor ask me to keep a look out for his ring he lost(w/description) he hopes I find it before his wife realizes he lost it, so far no luck.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... Those rules are mainly against people vandalizing the parks and thieves stealing shrubs or trees....

Exactly. Even though rules exist that forbid "taking", "removing", and "harvesting", yet for pete's sake: A "reasonable person" KNOWS this doesn't apply to fumble fingers old coins. You're right: They were spelled out way-back-when, so no clown thinks he can help himself to the park benches. Or pull out rose bushes to take home to his own garden. Or harvest the sand or tanbark for commercial sale, etc....

However: *COULD* such rules be construed to mean no "taking" of coins and pulltabs ? SURE. We're "taking" and "removing" them afterall. But realistically ? No.

 

[Back-of-the-boat]

Exactly. Even though rules exist that forbid "taking", "removing", and "harvesting", yet for pete's sake: A "reasonable person" KNOWS this doesn't apply to fumble fingers old coins. You're right: They were spelled out way-back-when, so no clown thinks he can help himself to the park benches. Or pull out rose bushes to take home to his own garden. Or harvest the sand or tanbark for commercial sale, etc....

However: *COULD* such rules be construed to mean no "taking" of coins and pulltabs ? SURE. We're "taking" and "removing" them afterall. But realistically ? No.

Exactly

 

[sprailroad]

I have only been approached one time by a police officer while detecting, and it was about the detecting itself, (for his son), I've kept the habit of having one or two copies of Western/Eastern magazine's in my truck, which I gave to him etc. Good public relations.