• Forum server maintanace Friday night.(around 7PM Centeral time)
    Website will be off line for a short while.

    You may need to log out, log back in after we're back online.

Distinction between "Law" vs "commentary"

A question I often hear is someone asking "is it legal." The thing is that here in the US, everything is legal, unless it is illegal. But for some reason our mindset is that we are constantly looking for someone to give us permission to do things that are legal. The problem with metal detecting is that there are so many activities involved in it that can be deemed illegal, like digging, defacing, removing, those are the things that are getting us. But I think the first step is to get that mindset out of our heads that we can't do anything without permission. If there is not a law against what we are doing, then we can do it. Simple as that. A warning is always preferable to a citation, and those who write citations can be pretty creative in getting their point across, but I seldom just accept that I am wrong just because someone else doesn't like what I'm doing.

The second part of this is policy. Policy is not law, but it helps define the law, and it sets precedence. If I am in doubt about something, like a park, I don't ask for permission, I ask what is the policy on metal detecting. I often get a different reaction to that question, because it is not a yes/no question. Someone has to actually address it. I ran across this when I first started detecting. I asked the fellow who is in charge of park maintenance what their policy was. He told me that the policy is that the ground has to be returned to its original condition. That's exactly what we do. Sounds like a policy that is made for us. But actually it is addressing other issues, like fastening soccer goals to the ground, putting up tents, things like that. We often get caught up in the no digging no defacing wording, but we aren't the only ones who dig. If I had just asked him if I could go out there and metal detect and dig stuff up, it would have been much easier for him to say no. But the policy defines what constitutes illegal. In our parks, it is illegal to dig, but the policy infers that making a hole and filling it back up is not digging.



Very good ! So good in fact that Tom in CA may let you hunt " his" turf without the customary 30% of finds surcharge .:laughing:
 
Rollie, enjoyed your post. One time, after I'd posted something similar to that, another md'r came on with a push-back post. They did not agree that .... simply because something was not illegal, that ... it is therefore ok to do. They gave the example of pooping in the pool. Ie.: "Just because there is no law forbidding pooping in the pool, does not make it right to do" :roll:

My answer back to the fellow was to point out a glaring implicit error in that example: It assumes that the activity, in question, is an obvious evil. Ie.: To compare md'ing with pooping in the pool. Since when is md'ing inherently evil, on-par with pooping in the pool ? I happen to consider md'ing harmless, healthy, benign, nutritious, wise, educational, etc.....

.... I don't ask for permission, I ask what is the policy on metal detecting. .....

This is sort of the old play on the proper way to phrase it. Eh ? Ie.: You don't waltz in asking "hi can I metal detect?". Instead, you phrase it as "Is there any law or rule that addresses metal detectors ?". Because, presumably, in THAT way, you're putting the burden of proof on them, to CITE any such law or rule, if one existed. And since it's extremely rare that any city ever had something so specific (they rarely ever mention "metal detectors" by name), then they would be forced to concede that there is nothing there mentioning detectors. Right ?

But this has failed many people. Even though it's an improved way of wording it, it can fail too. There's been people who got odd-ball answers like : "yes but you can't dig" (even though they never mentioned "digging"). Or "no you can't". And if the md'r objects and says: "Where is that written ?" They point you to ancillary verbiage they think applies to the "pressing question".

So if someone is hell-bent on talking to a live person (can't look things up for themselves), they can phrase it this way: "Where is a complete list of all the laws and rules that apply to the park use ?". Then you would be pointed to a link, or pointed to where it exists in binder form, etc.... If the person you ask this to says : "What is it you needed to know?", you stick to your guns and say: "To know where a comprehensive list of all the rules applying to the park is, in written form. Eg.: Dogs on leash, no fireworks, etc...". If it doesn't say "no md'ing", then presto: Not dis-allowed.

Very good ! So good in fact that Tom in CA may let you hunt " his" turf without the customary 30% of finds surcharge .:laughing:

Yes. Anyone who agrees with my rant, gets a 10% discount. Rollie only has to give me 20% of his finds, instead of my normal 30 % fee :laughing:
 
Last edited:
So if someone is hell-bent on talking to a live person (can't look things up for themselves), they can phrase it this way: "Where is a complete list of all the laws and rules that apply to the park use ?". Then you would be pointed to a link, or pointed to where it exists in binder form, etc.... If the person you ask this to says : "What is it you needed to know?", you stick to your guns and say: "To know where a comprehensive list of all the rules applying to the park is, in written form. Eg.: Dogs on leash, no fireworks, etc...". If it doesn't say "no md'ing", then presto: Not dis-allowed.



Yes. Anyone who agrees with my rant, gets a 10% discount. Rollie only has to give me 20% of his finds, instead of my normal 30 % fee :laughing:
The policies are not always spelled out, but the law is. In this day and age anyone can get on the internet, look it up, and interpret it for themselves. If one is going to go in and talk to someone face to face, it helps to know what you are talking about. I think that bureaucrats tend to give someone who comes in informed a bit more consideration than someone who comes in uninformed.
 
The policies are not always spelled out, but the law is. .....

I'm glad you see the distinction between "law" and "policy" (aka "commentary"). I agree with you, that something might not *explicitly* have a law about it (like md'ing, for instance), yet there is a "policy" nonetheless, where they boot people. Because perhaps they think it harms earthworms or whatever :roll:

But the solution for this possibility, is not to go in ahead of time asking "can I?", lest you fetch an arbitrary whimsical "no". When, in fact, perhaps the person would never have given the matter a moment's thought.

In fact, ..... think about it: The mere fact that ANYONE comes in asking if it's ok to do some odd-ball activity, THE MERE FACT that someone thinks they need to ask, is ALREADY casting aspursions on the activity-in-question.

In other words, no one asks to do harmless benign things. Right ? Eg.: you don't ask if you can skip stones on the pond. You don't ask if you can whistle dixie. You don't ask if you can skip rope, etc.... Why ? Because those things are harmless and benign. Well gee, why is m'ding so evil that .... it's somehow inherently harmful and dangerous, that it needs sanction ? The fact that someone is standing in front of them asking, has already set the stage (subconsciously in the mind of the person fielding your question), that something is amiss about this. Lest why else would you be asking, if it were harmless ?

I happen to consider it harmless. And if some busy-body passerby thinks otherwise, I will make it a point not to be seen by that singular individual. Presto, problem solved :)
 
I take it further and think that even when spelled out in policy, absent a law or code it's unenforceable. I don't believe or recognize that a Park Director/Manager/Etc gets to unilaterally place parks off limits to detecting without going through the normal law/coding process.

well, yes and no. Yes I agree that ... unless I see something SPECIFIC, I will detect . (Barring obvious sensitive monuments, of course.)

But No, in that .... I'm afraid they do have the authority to meld and interpret laws/rules as they see fit. That's why laws are written vaguely, some times, in the first place. Eg.: Laws that forbid "annoyances", etc... It's simply impossible to create laws for every conceivable thing that might arise. Hence it is within the authority of the police, rangers, or duly appointed park worker gardeners, to interpret to apply to this activity.

Also: I do not construe every/any isolated "scram" to constitute "law" or "policy" from then on out. Sometimes it just means: Give lip service, and come back later when that singular lookie-lou is not present.
 
I take it further and think that even when spelled out in policy, absent a law or code it's unenforceable. I don't believe or recognize that a Park Director/Manager/Etc gets to unilaterally place parks off limits to detecting without going through the normal law/coding process.

The only problem is that they can still have the police come and tell you to stop because of violating park policy (which would be a city policy in most cases). You are THEN forced to stop. If you continue, you can then be arrested for trespass.

Sadly, if people called 911 to complain about you metal detecting you can be forced to stop simply because your actions are creating a general nuisance.

None of that should be interpreted as a reason to NOT detect the park, just pointing out the you can still be forced to stop in absence of any law.
 
.... One would still have their day in court. ....

That is certainly an option. And I know a guy who did that. And when it came his turn in the cattle call lineup in the busy courtroom, the md'r had his 30 seconds to state his case. He just said "There's no law against detecting. I wasn't harming anything. I don't know why the cop gave me this ticket, and..." Before he could even get to his 3rd sentence, the judge says "Dismissed", and rubber stamped his ticket as dismissed :) That md'r carried it around with him, in that city, ever-there-after. In case he needed to show it to any busy-body. He even copied of a few for his buddies to carry. But ... to my knowledge, no one ever ended up using it or needing it.

Bottom line is though: This could back-fire. You know the drill: What if the judge dreamed up that you're "altering" or "defacing" or "removing" ? Plus it's just generally a hassle, time-consuming, etc..... I'd much rather just give lip service, instead of asking for a ticket-to-fight. And then just promptly avoid that single individual in the future.
 
I'm THE Gray Man! 50+ yrs deep cover specialist in evade avoid...I'm so damn invisible, unremarkable, unnoticable, I have to wear a name tag at the Family Reunions! I'm invisible like Patric Swayze in the movie Ghost! The Wife would chime in here and say, "Yeah, except He's much better looking and a great dancer!" To that I retort, "How would you know?, Whens the last time you've seen me dancing?" She would say "About Never" Well yeah, not with You! Exactimundo!:laughing:


I dont have a security clearance, dont need one..I am employed as a special contractor, Sector 7 , Autobot spec. 'Mopup Artist' 'Wallflower' "I smoke in Airports".. ..y'all other special K spooks getting this? :laughing:
 
I believe everything except you smoke in airports. Unless you mean you smoke fools in Airports John Wick style. Then I believe everything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, I go into that little changing baby diaper room for Mothers and Children? Right there on the concourse, I lock the door, sit right down on the shidder, and fire up a Non Filtered cig as if I own the place! :laughing:
 
Hahahahaha, hopefully you never ran into Senator Larry Craig. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/27/craig.arrest/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I actually stopped at that very same facility on my way through Minneapolis once! I had about an hour between flights, asked a security guard "Hey, Wheres the Senators Krapper?" Took a selfie in that famous stall! :laughing:

Yep, Grand Master Gray Man here! I can walk into a Waffle House and not get a greeting! :laughing:
 
Well it's kind of like spitting on the sidewalk. Yes, to think if you spit on the sidewalk you'll be ticketed may seem hilarious, but, IF a police officer is looking for a reason to cause you grief, they can use that stupid law to do so.

For the most part metal detecting falls in the same realm. There is a federal law that covers pretty much any type of detecting IF they want to cause you grief. That federal law applies to all states unless they have their own detecting laws. Good thing is in the vast majority of cases it is treated like spitting on the sidewalk.

http://www.saa.org/ForthePublic/Res...tingonprivateproperty/tabid/1032/Default.aspx
 
Tom, I think there is something different between MDing and other park activities because in mding there is the taking aspect of it. Those coins and artifacts belong to the property owner. In a park that would be all of us. Kind of like fish and wildlife belong to all of us and you have to follow laws to take them. Personally I prefer the don't ask, don't tell method of operation. If I can't find a law against it the only permission I need is from the wife.

From the City Ordnance
d. Mark upon, tear up, injure, deface, cut, dig or in any other way intentionally injure or impair the usefulness of structures, grass, trees, shrubs or plants, pavement, sidewalks or roadways.

f. Remove property of the parks without permission of the park board, the director of parks or the supervisor of the park.

k. Carry, possess or discharge any firearm, pellet gun or pistol, BB gun or other similar device

u. Annoy, harass, poke at, spit on, throw objects at or otherwise intentionally disturb any animal.

No person may smoke within the property defined as Park Central Square

No person shall lie upon the grass in Park Central Square at any time except during city-authorized events conducted upon the Square.


If you count earthworms as animals, I could be going to jail for a long time. I'm going to break half these laws before lunch, especially if I go to Park Central Square. I have to give the skateboarding kids credit for not saying "what about that old man" when they were getting run off for smoking and I'm 20 foot away puffin on a Pall Mall. It has happened 3 times now. I make it a point to lie upon the grass and smoke a cigarette as my own form of protest. They have passed these laws to keep out the undesirables and I'm all for that, but I have a problem with who gets to decide who is undesirable.
 
I totally get it. Even more so because my whole house of cards revolves around my security clearance, and one bad day in court effectively erases my kush 6 figure federal job and turns me into a Walmart door greeter, as I only have a GED and 20 years of intelligence experience.

I’m a pro at being the gray man, so it’s just theoretical at this point. The one time the cops got called on me (by another detectorist), the cop agreed with me about law/code vs policy and he was more interested in talking about detecting. Had I got a scram I would have most definitely scrammed a half mile to the next park.

But it’s really all theory, I’m the pro gray man. I’ve curb strip hunted right through downtown Annapolis, and that place is full of LOPs just itching to call the cops for looking at their grass wrong. It’s amazing how invisible you are as soon as you put on a safety vest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In any situation where one had to make a decision whether to butt heads, or just go along with it, my father used to say that it isn't who is right that counts, it is who is left at the end of the day. There are people out there who have nothing to lose by bucking the system. Good for them. But a most people have worked hard to get where they are, and spent years trying to achieve something, and taking and the consequences of indiscretion come with a high cost. When push comes to shove, I have no problem walking away. I've got way too much to lose to jeopardize it over a hobby.
 
Tom, I think there is something different between MDing and other park activities because in mding there is the taking aspect of it. Those coins and artifacts belong to the property owner. In a park that would be all of us. ......

Nope, absolutely incorrect! If you want to invoke ownership, you are implying stealing. If you want to involve "ownership" then you must also include ownership is voluntarily abandoned after the search for the lost item is stopped. Nothing we dig out of the ground is still being searched for. Its possession is forfeited and owned by nobody until its in our hand. Then it becomes ours.
 
In any situation where one had to make a decision whether to butt heads, or just go along with it, my father used to say that it isn't who is right that counts, it is who is left at the end of the day. There are people out there who have nothing to lose by bucking the system. Good for them. But a most people have worked hard to get where they are, and spent years trying to achieve something, and taking and the consequences of indiscretion come with a high cost. When push comes to shove, I have no problem walking away. I've got way too much to lose to jeopardize it over a hobby.

Your father was a wise man and the apple didn't fall far from the tree .
 
Well it's kind of like spitting on the sidewalk. Yes, to think if you spit on the sidewalk you'll be ticketed may seem hilarious, but, IF a police officer is looking for a reason to cause you grief, they can use that stupid law to do so.

For the most part metal detecting falls in the same realm. There is a federal law that covers pretty much any type of detecting IF they want to cause you grief. That federal law applies to all states unless they have their own detecting laws. Good thing is in the vast majority of cases it is treated like spitting on the sidewalk.

http://www.saa.org/ForthePublic/Res...tingonprivateproperty/tabid/1032/Default.aspx

Detector, I am going to have to dispute this post. I disagree that federal level laws (ARPA, that protects 50+ yr. old objects) reaches down, by subrogation, to states, counties, and city (aka "local jurisdiction") land. The only time this would be the case, is if the state, county, or city BROUGHT IN THE WORDING by DISTINCT EXPRESS INCLUSION .

But no: Just because the state is a sub-entity of the larger Fed., And just because the counties are a sub-entity of the larger state. And just because cities are a sub-entity of the larger county. DOES NOT MEAN that ARPA extends all the way down the chain.

As far as the wonderful link which you posted, which seems to indicate that ARPA does indeed extend "all the way down", here's what I have to say about that: Consider whose link that is. It is from purist archies, right ? And let's be honest: Purist archies HATE MD'RS. So OF COURSE their website links will paint us in the worst possible light. And make things sound "very dire". But what did you expect from purist archies ?

It would be like this: You've heard of P.E.T.A. eh ? "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals". They are animal rights extremist wackos. Who go around protesting/picketing rodeos, and so forth . And if you were to ask a PETA rep: "Hello, can I please leave my pet bunny in the car, while I run into 7-11 to get a soda?". What would the PETA person say ? They would screech : "NNOOooooohh. You can be arrested for animal cruelty. The bunny will suffer. Your car can be confiscated, blah blah blah". Heck, they can maybe even cite scary sounding animal cruelty laws that appear to bolster what they are saying.

SO TOO is it with that silly link you posted. Just as in no one cares a rat's b*tt if you leave your bunny in the car while you grab a slurpee, SO TO does no one, except those purist archies, care one ioto if you find a 51 yr. old coin in a park. I put very little stock into what some purist archies say. And that link (claiming that the laws subrogate all the way down) is full of holes. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
Tom, I think there is something different between MDing and other park activities because in mding there is the taking aspect of it. Those coins and artifacts belong to the property owner. In a park that would be all of us. Kind of like fish and wildlife belong to all of us and you have to follow laws to take them. Personally I prefer the don't ask, don't tell method of operation. If I can't find a law against it the only permission I need is from the wife.

From the City Ordnance
d. Mark upon, tear up, injure, deface, cut, dig or in any other way intentionally injure or impair the usefulness of structures, grass, trees, shrubs or plants, pavement, sidewalks or roadways.

f. Remove property of the parks without permission of the park board, the director of parks or the supervisor of the park.

k. Carry, possess or discharge any firearm, pellet gun or pistol, BB gun or other similar device

u. Annoy, harass, poke at, spit on, throw objects at or otherwise intentionally disturb any animal.

No person may smoke within the property defined as Park Central Square

No person shall lie upon the grass in Park Central Square at any time except during city-authorized events conducted upon the Square.


If you count earthworms as animals, I could be going to jail for a long time. I'm going to break half these laws before lunch, especially if I go to Park Central Square. I have to give the skateboarding kids credit for not saying "what about that old man" when they were getting run off for smoking and I'm 20 foot away puffin on a Pall Mall. It has happened 3 times now. I make it a point to lie upon the grass and smoke a cigarette as my own form of protest. They have passed these laws to keep out the undesirables and I'm all for that, but I have a problem with who gets to decide who is undesirable.

Scooter-jim: Interesting post.

And you will notice, that I have said over and over , that : Yes, a duly appointed authority COULD INDEED say that our activity falls afoul of verbiage against "harvest", "take", "remove", "alter", "deface" and so forth.

But why do we therefore need to START with the premise that ....we do indeed fall afoul of these items ? "Until given a princely blessing to the contrary" ? It's not that I disagree that our actions *could* fall under those categories.

But ... heck ... SO TOO could the other things I used as examples, also fall under forbidding language. Eg.: flying frisbees. Or skipping stones on the pond. Why isn't that covered under prohibitions of "throwing projectiles" ? After all, you could "poke someone's eye out", right ?

Why do we need to start with the assumption that our activity is disliked, abhorrent, damaging, taking things (that anyone really cared or knew about), etc... ? I happen to find it quite the opposite. People come up to me and ask "What's the best thing you've ever found?" or "how deep does it go?" and "where can I buy one of those?" etc... And actually, simply ignored for the most part. FAR from being some horrible activity that every passerby finds offensive.

If we START with the premise that our actions are inherently illegal (taking, removing, altering, defacing, etc...) then everything you're saying would be true. And then .... sure ...we should grovel wherever we come to, for permission. But the moment we go down that path, is the moment we're doomed. Because then you start bumping into the "no one cared till you asked" psychology :(
 
Nope, absolutely incorrect! If you want to invoke ownership, you are implying stealing. If you want to involve "ownership" then you must also include ownership is voluntarily abandoned after the search for the lost item is stopped. Nothing we dig out of the ground is still being searched for. Its possession is forfeited and owned by nobody until its in our hand. Then it becomes ours.

This was the subject of a long thread once.

On the one hand ... sure .... there is language on all public land, that forbids "harvest", "remove", "take", "steal", etc..... And it will usually complete the sentence with the phrase "park features".

So the debate was: Is a coin, or ring, or pulltab, a "park feature" ? They are certainly not a naturally occurring object. Eg.: like cutting down the trees, or commercially harvesting the sand, or taking home the park benches, etc...

So are fumble fingers introduced objects now "park features" ? Or are they in a different class ? To add confusion to the question: What if the fumble fingers object has (gasp) laid there for 51+ yrs. ? haha
 
The thing about laws and policies is that everybody has their own interpretation of them and it is often times hard to determine which one really counts. That's why they end up in court where a judge gets to decide. I think that often times it is a better strategy to feign ignorance than to argue interpretation.
 
The thing about laws and policies is that everybody has their own interpretation of them and it is often times hard to determine which one really counts. That's why they end up in court where a judge gets to decide. I think that often times it is a better strategy to feign ignorance than to argue interpretation.

I got 'feigning ignorance' nailed, Its actually a better strategy to simply go unnoticed or act like a a foreign tourist and babble incoherently.."too too de suis tootoo de suis?" "Omelete du Fromage"?

Its pretty easy in American to just babble on in some sort of strange language to get a guy off the hook! Gesticulate gestures wildly, all animated like an Italian buying a loaf of bread, or a marionette, only bigger and with sincere purpose, joi de vivre, and panache......

After all, America is the Global 'Bastards Melting Pot', You cant expect some monolinguistic Barney Fife local Leo to be fluent! So you just understand this and roll with the "Coniche Wa Anjinsan!" kind of babble...look stupid and confused as easily as I do, as a descendant of Monrovian Gypsys from the hinterlands of the Alsace Lorraine......

they will just wave you off and let you go once they figure you are not a Canadian or a Mexican...

its like damn, not too hard to get by in this World once a guy knows the local sitch..."Too too de suis, too too de swas?" Translation: "You reading me 5X5 here you pisscomplected nipplenosed mudwhistling muttherhubbard?':laughing:
 
Back
Top Bottom