Man could face jail time for posessing metal detector

[DocBeav]

Wow, rules are rules and we are expected to know them but this is ridiculous! A warning would have been fine........

Maybe they should re-evaluate the laws/rules in some places......Detecting a dry lake bed during a drought? Come on...I fail to see how that could possibly cause any harm.....

Isn't it cool that the Fed/State governments can pick and choose what laws they want to enforce (thanks Mr. Holder........) you know, the minor laws like immigration and drug enforcement, but you'd better get a lawyer if you want to do some detecting!

http://news.yahoo.com/video/man-could-face-jail-time-182030850.html

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Trezurehunter]

Its easier to go after someone with a metal detector. We don't run like the illegals.

 

[JUNKER]

As the song says SIGNS ,signs everywhere there is signs. It's stupid but you have to check and most know federal or historic area is generally a no and where water is like some lakes if it's a source of drinking water. It is tuft but we all have to check first. It is like must things a few spoil it for the rest they have no common curiosity for others like digging holes and not filling them in then leaving trash behind and detecting right next to people on the beach

 

[HenryWaltonJonesJr]

So you can drive on it and your car can drip oil onto the lake bed, but not dig into it? Madness.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

Wow, rules are rules and we are expected to know them but this is ridiculous! A warning would have been fine........ Maybe they should re-evaluate the laws/rules in some places......Detecting a dry lake bed during a drought? Come on...I fail to see how that could possibly cause any harm..... Isn't it cool that the Fed/State governments can pick and choose what laws they want to enforce (thanks Mr. Holder........) you know, the minor laws like immigration and drug enforcement, but you'd better get a lawyer if you want to do some detecting! http://news.yahoo.com/video/man-could-face-jail-time-182030850.html

DocBeav, this link has been making the rounds for a few days now. A few observations:


This is a state of CA lake, operated by the state park's dept. As such, sure, I suppose (as in most states) there is cultural heritage verbage that could be applied. Or verbage about "harvesting" or "removing" or "taking", etc.... You know, laws to forbid you from taking home the swing sets, or harvesting sand for commercial uses, etc... But could they be applied to individual coins, a horse-shoe, etc... ? Sure.

But to be honest with you, the only reason you're reading that link, and the only reason that happened, is because of the hoopala surrounding THAT particular lake-bottom feature: a particular notable colorful burg "Mormon Bar" that got covered with the creation of that reservoir. And some cool foundations that got exposed during this drought (when, truth-be-told, most of the town is STILL underwater though, and this is just the outskirts). The news had gone in and done a few news blitzes on it, and that simply brought out every Tom Dick and Harry with their radio shack metal detector. And humorously, NOTHING HAPPENED. There was even a youtube clip someone made , showing the viewer various exposed foundations, and ...... guess what you see going on in the background?? METAL DETECTORS. Yup, people just walking through the lookie-lou crowd with detectors, and apparently no one knew any better, no one cared, it wasn't an issue, etc.... But I guess given the media attention, and the growing crowd of lookie-lous, it was only a matter of time before some "scrams" got issued. And now I guess they needed to make an example, eh?

I'd venture to say that if this same thing had gone on at a regular state parks swimming lake (persons looking for jewelry on receeded swimming beaches) that this wouldn't have happened. It's ONLY because it's a sensitive monument, and had gotten media news pieces on it.

And oddly, you can detect state of CA beaches till you're blue in the face, and no one cares. So the rules, I guess, have just been interpretted to mean the inland parks, not the ocean beaches. Yet in reality, it's the exact same park's dept. entity that administers each. So technically, there's no reason why the same rules wouldn't apply to both. But in actual practice, it's just never worked that way thankfully.

I can count on a single hand, the number of state-of-Ca park's dept "tickets" I know of for md'ing. This Folsom thing being one of them. And I'd venture to say that if you floated a survey on all the major forums, getting feedback from as many state of CA hunters as you could, that the entire # of "tickets" gotten for this, could be counted on 2 hands ? I'm sure there's been some scrams, but ... no, not tickets. Not unless you were someone night-sneaking obvious historic sensitive monuments, or someone who couldn't take a warning. But ones like this? (honest beginners who simply didn't know ?) No. Just isn't happening. Thus this is just the rangers wishing to make an example, and I would not consider this some sort of "norm" in State of CA parks.

Not saying to throw caution to the wind and help yourself to state of CA inland parks. But just saying that in all reality, this is the exception, for this one news-worthy-sensitive site, and not the norm.

 

[DocBeav]

Good info Tom! Thanks! Haven't detected Cali yet but if I end up out there again on business then I'm definitely bringing one with me!

 

[thrillathahunt]

...and I am sure it has something to do with ARPA , you know, artifacts over 50 years old and such. Metal detectorists are not supposed to keep that stuff found on government land......so say the Archies.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...and I am sure it has something to do with ARPA , you know, artifacts over 50 years old and such.

Arpa is only for federal. This is state. HOWEVER: that's not to say that any individual state's verbage can't INCORPORATE "arpa" into their own codes, by specific inclusion. But if it's not drawn in by inclusion, then no, that's fed, not state.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Here's another after thought in all of this : Are any of you starting to see the benefits of hunting at night now ? I've been doing most of my hunting at night now for years (except beach ). And this story just serves to remind me why.

Ah nights are .... so peaceful .... so serene .... so quiet

 

[rjsupersonic]

If it was me I would request a jury trial......it will either take years to schedule the case or a smart prosecutor will drop the charge.

 

[LM]

A non story. Before even opening the thread, you knew what it was going to be; someone wandered onto Federal property with a metal detector.

Ask the Rangers at any Civil War battlefield that's also a national park how many people they have to turn away every year who think they can just show up to Gettysburg with a MD and start in.

While the rules themselves may be stupid, pointless and arbitrarily heavy-handed, this is yet another example of why its important to know what's legal, what isn't and ignore the fanciful encyclicals of TominCa about just doing whatever you feel like. TomInCA isn't paying for this guys lawyer, TomInCa isn't reimbursing him for the time he has to take off work, TomInCA isn't going to feed his dog if he goes to jail.

 

[dustytrails123]

A non story. Before even opening the thread, you knew what it was going to be; someone wandered onto Federal property with a metal detector.

Ask the Rangers at any Civil War battlefield that's also a national park how many people they have to turn away every year who think they can just show up to Gettysburg with a MD and start in.

While the rules themselves may be stupid, pointless and arbitrarily heavy-handed, this is yet another example of why its important to know what's legal, what isn't and ignore the fanciful encyclicals of TominCa about just doing whatever you feel like. TomInCA isn't paying for this guys lawyer, TomInCa isn't reimbursing him for the time he has to take off work, TomInCA isn't going to feed his dog if he goes to jail.

Well as the man stated hes going to be using a public defender so i guess tom is paying for it....thanks tom

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

A non story. Before even opening the thread, you knew what it was going to be; someone wandered onto Federal property with a metal detector. Ask the Rangers at any Civil War battlefield that's also a national park how many people they have to turn away every year who think they can just show up to Gettysburg with a MD and start in. While the rules themselves may be stupid, pointless and arbitrarily heavy-handed, this is yet another example of why its important to know what's legal, what isn't and ignore the fanciful encyclicals of TominCa about just doing whatever you feel like. TomInCA isn't paying for this guys lawyer, TomInCa isn't reimbursing him for the time he has to take off work, TomInCA isn't going to feed his dog if he goes to jail.

Hi LM. Are you aware that the ticket here was at a state of CA site, not a federal site as you say in your post ? And read again, and see that I do acknowledge that .... sure, they've got a real rule to throw at him (cultural heritage or whatever). So I'm not sure what you mean by that it's defensible, or that I could defend it, etc...

Re-read what I've written in my stance positions, and you will see I repeatedly say "sure, avoid obvious historic monuments". Is that what this guy did ? No. So I don't get it.

 

[cudamark]

Well as the man stated hes going to be using a public defender so i guess tom is paying for it....thanks tom

As am I, and the rest of the tax payers of Ca. With any sense, they'll drop the suit with just a warning as I don't think the state can win. I'm convinced it was done at the behest of the archie community to curtail our hobby and discourage detecting at all state owned sites. They're just doing it to set an example and scare the rest of us into believing the land and everything buried within, belongs to them.

 

[cw0909]

maybe this is part of the problem too, a particular ranger makes the call then you have to work it out in court, just like LE says i just write the ticket, talk to the judge The College Degree Required to Be a Park Ranger Types of Degrees

According to park ranger job listings posted on USAJOBS by the National Park Service, acceptable majors for the education requirement include anthropology, archaeology, behavioral sciences, business administration, earth sciences, history, law enforcement, museum sciences, natural resource management, natural sciences,park and recreation management, police science, public administration, social sciences, sociology, or “other closely related subjects pertinent to the management and protection of natural and cultural resources.” Degrees need to be from an accredited institution.
College Degree Required to Be a Park Ranger | The Classroom | Synonym

 

[golden sluice]

R U L E S of our nation need some revision...

 

[doc-d]

Sad, very sad……is this what our country has become? Is this the land of the free? Is this justice being served?
In a word, I would call this evil on the part of the gov and the jackbooted thug who wrote the ticket (or whatever it was).

 

[Eureka!]

Hi LM. Are you aware that the ticket here was at a state of CA site, not a federal site as you say in your post ? And read again, and see that I do acknowledge that .... sure, they've got a real rule to throw at him (cultural heritage or whatever). So I'm not sure what you mean by that it's defensible, or that I could defend it, etc... Re-read what I've written in my stance positions, and you will see I repeatedly say "sure, avoid obvious historic monuments". Is that what this guy did ? No. So I don't get it.

AVOID THE OBVIOUS HISTORICAL MONUMENTS? - KEY WORD HERE "OBVIOUS"

The "guy" (fellow detectorist) may have avoided the site had he known it was restricted to metal detecting. The site had ONE sign he claims he didn't see because it was at an entrance which he did not use. Also, he was ONLY carrying the detector and in broad daylight!

This situation reminds me of someone who has a full carry gun permit and gets in trouble for going into a school which he didn't realize had a gun free zone rule in effect because he didn't see the Posted Notice. If the Laws were uniform (NO GUNS ALLOWED IN ANY SCHOOL ANYWHERE -PERIOD) across the Nation then we wouldn't get into these situations.

Lastly, it is very confusing to the average folk wanting to to detect within the Law, to figure out what branch of government controls the particular Park, Preserve, Landmark, Historical Sites, etc. Uniformity in the Laws seems non-existent in most cases.......See my (EUREKA! ) Threads under Treasure Hunting Laws.

My advice to my fellow Hunters, Shooters is to Research - Plan - Surveil - Execute; BEFORE the Hunt. Get on your Mountain Bike and ride around look for potential spots and Posted Notices. . ..keep out of trouble.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

AVOID THE OBVIOUS HISTORICAL MONUMENTS? - KEY WORD HERE "OBVIOUS" .......

Eureka, good observation. While we both agree on avoiding "obvious" historic sensitive monuments (to avoid trouble), you're right: the word "obvious" is a loaded term. It's subjective, etc...

And I suppose persons have even received flack for NON historic, NON-sensitive places (innocuous sandboxes, etc...).

Here's my answer to all this: Yes, anything's possible. Anyone can practice this "due discretion' and still, somehow, someway, run into someone who doesn't like it, or think it runs afoul of something, etc... Agreed. HOWEVER: In my opinion, so long as a person has applied the "avoid sacred historic monuments" addage (even though ambiguous), the remaining times you might run into someone who doesn't like it, will be greatly decreased. At least insofar as "cultural heritage" cr*p goes, maybe not turf issues, etc... And to the extent you've abided by this addage as much as possible, yet STILL run into someone who throws the book at you for some trumped up charge, I'd say the odds are so slim, as to be "worth it".

Let me give you an example: You can get an over-zealous cop to pull you over and rough you up for nothing but a tail-light out. Right? He can ticket you, arrest you, confiscate your car, jail you, etc... all for nothing but a tail-light out or going 56 in a 55, right? So you tell me: does that stop you from driving when you read of such extremes? NO, of COURSE NOT. You and I look at such stories as exceptions, not norms. SO TOO is it with metal detecting: Sure: once in awhile you might read of someone roughed up (beyond a mere scram) from something non-historic and not obvious. But the remoteness and infrequency of such things is such that ........ it doesn't bother me. If I was so skittish and fearful that "someone might not like it", then .... I probably wouldn't be in this hobby.

 

[deodra]

Probably an archie thing. They just want the really important metallic historical artifacts to slowly dissolve and disappear. Now, that's respecting history!