reply
Ryan, Jimmy, and bit-pusher, thanx for the concurrances
Stewart, you may be right that you already know how I'll reply. So let's see:
Uh...because it might be illegal ...
Would depend on your defenition of "illegal". I fear that the way you define is, is in this way: If you or I can find ANYONE in city hall that would say "no", that therefore, it's "illegal." But I do not use that definition. The mere fact that someone in 100K people "might not like it", does not, for me, mean "therefore it's illegal". To me "illegal" needs to be defined as specific "no metal detectors allowed" type-of-thing. Now I grant you that stepping over a yellow ticker tape and cone does present a problem to my stance. Or (gasp), opening up the bailing wire that hold 2-panels shut, and going into a demolition site. Sure, I'll grant you that you and I can find lawyers who correctly say that the mere presence of such things constitutes illegal. Thus I will agree with you there. All I can say to that is: fine, don't hunt demolition sites. My experience though is that those are put there (as someone else said earlier on this thread) so that if you slip on a bananna peel, you can't sue them. Yes I know that's "taking liberties" with intentions and meanings, etc... But .... all I know is, is that you can knock yourself silly till the cows come home asking "can I step over this ribbon" or "can I go past that fence at the school", and ..... you're going to risk the "no one cared till you asked" scenario
.... our goal as detectorists is simply to be able to dig every site we want, by whatever means necessary....
Why yes, in fact, that is my goal
I have a lot of seateds, gold coins, tokens, etc... to show for it. Being timid and relegating yourself to sandboxes is not the way to find the really old coins afterall
Telling yourself that 'nobody would care anyway' is just a convenient way to justify doing what you want to do, regardless of what the rules might be or how people might actually feel about it....
Conversely, do you see how your statement here merely presumes your point of view in equal converse fashion? Ie.: that a) people care [and don't want you to do it], and b) that it's against the rules. Why is that? What if what I'm saying about some sites is EXACTLY true, that ... in fact ... no one cares? Why is it assumed that everyone hates md'ing in your stance ?
.... Isn't it also paradoxical that on one hand you assume that nobody will care anyway if you dig, and yet if you were to ask them beforehand they would all say no. How does that work?
If you truly believe nobody would care anyway then asking and securing permission should be a breeze.
...
I answered this before, but will repeat again: There is no shortages of authorities, who ... yes.... might care less, and may pay you no mind. But on the other hand, those SAME persons are not able to say "sure go ahead" and put their signature on something. They can/will/might instead opt for the CYA answer of "no", when asked to put their name on something. Because think of it: the mere fact you or I are standing their asking their blessing to do something odd like this, merely presumes that their "permission" was needed, to begin with ! (lest why else would you be asking). And that it's not innocuous and harmless, and is somehow risky or wrong (lest why else would you be asking, if it was innocuous and harmless?). All of this is not subconsciously lost on the person you're asking, thus only contibuting to their eventual potential answer
That's a drag, because yes, they have amped up scrutiny for after hours in the last decade or two, because of this. But note that this has NOTHING TO DO with metal detecting, per se. I mean, the thought of coins or buttons isn't on their radar, it's just that they don't want people fooling with their tractors, or taking all the copper wire spools, etc.. But md'rs can get snared in the same net of security 
