I Have A Bit of legality question

[Minimal]

There is this old 1860s house that I want to detect. The problem is it is on the NRHP, but it is also on public land I pay taxes for. The house is not kept up and no one lives there. They are trying to get funds to make it back in it's original state. I was wondering if, as long as I didn't damage the house, could I detect it legally? I know it is on the NRHP but it also on public land. What do you guys think?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

What type public land ? Ie.: city ? county? state ? Fed? And if the answer is state or fed, what TYPE of state or fed land ? And what's "NRHP" stand for ?

 

[Jason in Enid]

NRHP = national register of historic places which is completely meaningless. It is nothing more than a list with properties on it. It is not a national park. It has no special protections or privileges unless the fed govt is paying for its upkeep which it sounds like nobody is keeping up anything in this case.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

NRHP = national register of historic places ....

Ahh, yes, of course. Thanx. I've hunted places on that list, without any problem. Oh sure, not at "sensitive monuments" type places, but ......... Yes: The actual locations/spots themselves can be on an array of different types land (including private). So the fact of being on that list, does not, in and of itself, preclude them.

 

[George (MN)]

If it is in a state, county, or city park, at least the laws for those places would apply.

The main purpose of a house being on the NRHP is so nobody can tear it down, & the exterior design must remain the same. Also, being on the NRHP just might increase the chances if getting money to fix it. If the grass near the house is real good condition & they might make this house a tourist attraction that charges admission, someone might not like you being there & it could be watched by various people to make sure the house isn't vandalized & that nobody is living in it. Just because a city or county or state owns a property, it isn't necessarily for all to use at any time. If it is in a city or county park that allows detecting, you're probably OK.

In Philadelphia, Fairmount Park became closed to detecting. Heard later it was reopened to detecting, but they made a law that detectorists could not go within a specified distance of the 1700s mansions in the park. So a part of a park is OK, but not near historic homes. In Nashville, Centennial Park is the only big 1800s park, so people try to detect there frequently. Then a police officer sees them & has to tell them they are welcome at any other city park, as that one has a historic building that charges admission & the operation is run by a separate BoD. So, because of exceptions, I can't give you guaranteed legal advice. Is it city, county, state, or Fed property?

Sometimes, when a house is facing demolition they might put it on NRHP. Could be some developer wants the spot. In that case, the house could be moved if some funding is available. So if that house has been moved, there might not be any old coins there.

 

[Jason in Enid]

The main purpose of a house being on the NRHP is so nobody can tear it down, & the exterior design must remain the same. Also, being on the NRHP just might increase the chances if getting money to fix it.

The first statement is wrong, the second they is correct. Any property on the list is still under the full control of the owner who can do anything they wish, including tearing it down. An owner of a NRHP property can apply for federal money for maintaining it, but they then give up many rights to do this. The vast majority of NRHP properties receive no money.

 

[kayakpat]

If you don't own it, you do not have permission, you are trespassing, you are not "the public" you may be arrested

 

[Tom_in_CA]

If you don't own it, you do not have permission, you are trespassing, you are not "the public" you may be arrested

I have read and re-read the OP's opening post. And I fail to see where he said it was on private property. In fact, in his 2nd-to-the-last sentence: He distinctly says it is on public land. So what's which this "trespassing" and "arrest" stuff ?

 

[kayakpat]

public lands are managed by some authority and can make the rules, city hall is pubic property and parks and other places etc , and, Individuals are not "the Public" and cannot decide to do what they want, so the people (authority) legally responsible for its management may have rules prohibiting MDing and digging there, or bike riding or 4 wheeling or walking on the grass or many many other activities. I would find out first.

 

[RJGMC]

I have read this several times, and still have a question. If individuals are not the "public" then who is?

Thanks!

RJGMC
HI BOB!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

public lands are managed by some authority and can make the rules .... may have rules prohibiting MDing and digging there,....

Sure. Fine. If someone is skittish/worried that there may be a "no detecting" rule at some public land, then sure: they can look it up for themselves. If there is nothing that says "no detecting" in the laws/rules, then presto: It's not dis-allowed.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I have read this several times, and still have a question. If individuals are not the "public" then who is? ...

I know what you're driving at Bob, but I'll beat the skittish-to-the-punch: Here's their answer: "just because it's public, doesn't give you the right to do anything you want to do".

But notice what's inherent in the above statement. The IMPLIED things that you can't "just do", are going to be things like: yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or nudity. Or throwing water baloons at ball players. Or imbedding razer blades on the pitchers mound, etc....

And what's the common thread inherent on all those examples?: Harm, danger, damage, etc... , right ? So when someone cites this logic of "you can't just do anything you want", I can't help but believe that they therefore lump md'ing into this same category of "harm, danger, damage". Why is that? Why is that their automatic equivalence? Since when is that a "premise" or a "given" ? I happen to consider detecting non-harmful, beneficial, helpful, enjoyable, nutritious, etc....

 

[Jason in Enid]

I know what you're driving at Bob, but I'll beat the skittish-to-the-punch: Here's their answer: "just because it's public, doesn't give you the right to do anything you want to do".

But notice what's inherent in the above statement. The IMPLIED things that you can't "just do", are going to be things like: yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or nudity. Or throwing water baloons at ball players. Or imbedding razer blades on the pitchers mound, etc....

And what's the common thread inherent on all those examples?: Harm, danger, damage, etc... , right ? So when someone cites this logic of "you can't just do anything you want", I can't help but believe that they therefore lump md'ing into this same category of "harm, danger, damage". Why is that? Why is that their automatic equivalence? Since when is that a "premise" or a "given" ? I happen to consider detecting non-harmful, beneficial, helpful, enjoyable, nutritious, etc....

It's only nutritious when I lick the dirt off my silver coins.

 

[kayakpat]

The public is a group entity, and those places were collectively set up and owned by a authority as a social community property, be it could be by a city, township ,state, county, parrish, Feds, etc or whatever. They are the authority, they set the rules, call all the shots, and maintain those places, that goes way back in days of Kings, when public areas were known as "the commons".

 

[Jason in Enid]

The public is a group entity, and those places were collectively set up and owned by a authority as a social community property, be it could be by a city, township ,state, county, parrish, Feds, etc or whatever. They are the authority, they set the rules, call all the shots, and maintain those places, that goes way back in days of Kings, when public areas were known as "the commons".

According to your theory of public spaces, nobody should ever be allowed to do anything or even enter "public places" because no individual has a "right" to do so. That is a public space, you probably shouldn't even be looking at it, you don't have the right to do that either.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

According to your theory of public spaces, nobody should ever be allowed to do anything or even enter "public places" because no individual has a "right" to do so. That is a public space, you probably shouldn't even be looking at it, you don't have the right to do that either.

Well now Jason, c'mon: If there weren't "rules of order", then society would devolve into chaos People might start selling crack to 4th grade kids, stealing, clubbing baby seals, or even (gasp) metal detecting! So as much as we all dislike rules, yet .... they're for our/your own good

 

[Fletch88]

Well now Jason, c'mon: If there weren't "rules of order", then society would devolve into chaos People might start selling crack to 4th grade kids, stealing, clubbing baby seals, or even (gasp) metal detecting! So as much as we all dislike rules, yet .... they're for our/your own good

Good point Tom!