Put away your metal detectors sheeple

[tarpon192]

Does this effect the salvors with the proper permitting?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

Hobbit, you ask:

"Are you serious? Do you actually believe that the statement of an appointed spokesman about the "intent" of legislation has any legal validity? "

If anyone in a position of authority says "go ahead" to me (no matter how mistaken they may be), I'm not going to argue with it! And especially if I had it in writing, how in blazes can anyone argue with that?

Until the day comes that that fellow goes public with some sort of a retraction, then it's HIS problem, not yours.

Example: If you go to a park, and see a cop sitting there on a park bench. You think there might be verbage at city hall that forbids you from detecting, but you're not sure, as there is "debate" amongst the hobbyists in your town, on whether this really applies or not. So you walk up to the cop, and say "is it ok if I metal detect here?" He answers "yes". So do you argue with him, or do you detect? If another cop or gardener takes issue with you, you merely cite your authority, and so be it! No one is going to get in trouble except the cop who gave you the wrong information, NOT YOU!

I don't get it! It's as if a bunch of you simply WANT to believe the worst, and immediately dismiss any notion of good news. What's up with that?

so did the task force, in that link's info, get the words of this fellow in print? If so, it's golden.

 

[ScubaFinder]

I don't get it! It's as if a bunch of you simply WANT to believe the worst, and immediately dismiss any notion of good news. What's up with that?

Tom, it's called EXPERIENCE!!! We who live and detect in Florida have been fighting battles like this for decades. I'm sure it's easy for you to troll around a thread which you have zero experience with and call us a bunch of loons, but walk a mile in our shoes brother, then you just might understand how daft your comments make you look. Just stating the facts as I see em, but you are entitled to your uninformed opinion, so post on brother.

Jason

 

[hobbit]

Hobbit, you ask:

"Are you serious? Do you actually believe that the statement of an appointed spokesman about the "intent" of legislation has any legal validity? "

If anyone in a position of authority says "go ahead" to me (no matter how mistaken they may be), I'm not going to argue with it! And especially if I had it in writing, how in blazes can anyone argue with that?

Until the day comes that that fellow goes public with some sort of a retraction, then it's HIS problem, not yours.

Example: If you go to a park, and see a cop sitting there on a park bench. You think there might be verbage at city hall that forbids you from detecting, but you're not sure, as there is "debate" amongst the hobbyists in your town, on whether this really applies or not. So you walk up to the cop, and say "is it ok if I metal detect here?" He answers "yes". So do you argue with him, or do you detect? If another cop or gardener takes issue with you, you merely cite your authority, and so be it! No one is going to get in trouble except the cop who gave you the wrong information, NOT YOU!

I don't get it! It's as if a bunch of you simply WANT to believe the worst, and immediately dismiss any notion of good news. What's up with that?

so did the task force, in that link's info, get the words of this fellow in print? If so, it's golden.

First of all, I want to apologize if I sound animated. I do not want to be disrespectful to anyone and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But know this: ignorance of the law is no LEGAL excuse for breaking the law, no matter where the ignorance springs from. Law is not based on what someone, anyone, TELLS you. Even the President cannot make law by simply stating that it is so. Richard Nixon tried that during Watergate. If my Representative writes me a letter saying that a bill will not raise my taxes, can I use that letter to avoid paying more in taxes? Of course not. You are saying that if a politician says something untruthful about a bill in order to get it passed, then you can use that statement to invalidate the law after it HAS passed. Think about this for a moment. Politicans lie everyday in order to get bills passed. They lie in writing in order to get bills passed. I am not even Cynical about this. It is just the way it is.

 

[PyrateJim]

I don't get it! It's as if a bunch of you simply WANT to believe the worst, and immediately dismiss any notion of good news. What's up with that?

Tom, it's called EXPERIENCE!!! We who live and detect in Florida have been fighting battles like this for decades. I'm sure it's easy for you to troll around a thread which you have zero experience with and call us a bunch of loons, but walk a mile in our shoes brother, then you just might understand how daft your comments make you look. Just stating the facts as I see em, but you are entitled to your uninformed opinion, so post on brother.

Jason

Where's the "LIKE" button when you need it.

 

[Twisted One]

Twisted one, you say:

"but no government entity has full listing of the entire realm of legalities on their website. "

Yes, I agree. It is simply impossible for any list of laws to list everything that is illegal, to solve every possible problem of semantics. Therefore laws are written in vague enough way, so as to apply to a myriad of circumstances as they may arise in the field. For example, there may be a law about nudity, and someone can try to rationalize that by wearing a single sock, they were not technically "nude", and so forth.

But let's cut to the chase about your comment, as it applies specifically to our hobby: You are concerned that even though there may not be an actual specific rule forbidding metal detecting, yet you might run afoul of something related, that some busy body interprets, on the spot, to apply. Right? For example "defacement and alterations" or "no collecting" vebage, or "cultural heritage" verbage or "lost and found laws" verbage, and so forth, right?

Sure, it's entirely possible that someone could come up to you and morph a TON of things to apply to you. If this is your concern, then I'm afraid you've chosen the wrong hobby (or your simply going to have to restrict yourself to private land). Because to start down that road, is to have lost the battle already. Because I gaurantee you, that if you want to fear things that cops might morph to apply to you, then give it up right now. For example, the dreaded "alteration" type clauses: I challenge you to go into any city in the USA, and walk in to city hall, and ask "Hi. Can I please alter and deface the park?" and see what they say. Of COURSE they are going to say no. But as you can see by a quick look at Tnet's various finds forums, people are detecting parks all the time, because they choose not to define themselves in that light. And so too do passerbys care less as well, apparently, as evidenced by the fact that there is no shortage of park hunters, eh? But sure: if you want to worry about the potential that someone may not love you or your hobby, then you've chosen the wrong hobby. Because let's face it: we're in an odd hobby, that has connotations, and draws the stares of the curious folk out there sometimes.

If in the isolated incidents that some authority DID morph something to apply to you, and you DID point out to them that you looked up things first, and saw no prohibitions, then they are welcome to "inform you" of something they have *now* intrepretted to apply to you. No problem. You just pay them lip service, and avoid that one person or place in the future.

As much as I'd love for parks to have signs that say "metal detecting welcome here, go ahead, come dig up things for your personal profit and enjoyment", it just aint gonna happen. And I can always find some rule to forbid me, if I do enough antics and worrying. So ..... therefore .... I will only consider myself forbidden in the case of SPECIFIC wording saying so, or a warning telling me so. Otherwise, you and I might as well give up the hobby now.

You couldn't be much more clear than that Tom. Thanks.

 

[ivan salis]

political folks who are hosing you are not going to say "oh you know the bill we are about to pass into law is all about hosing you" * --there going to politically "mealy mouth" -- oh that bill we are purposing will not effect "you" in anyway , so stop worrying -- its only for "the other people ' ( not you) so go back to sleep while we pass it by under your sleeping nose . - you can trust me trust me , cuz I 'm a politican ! -- these are the same folks that when they were in fairness were asked to pay the same for their "state" health coverage as a adverage normal state employee * like a janitor for exsample --one of had the balls to say -- well we are not "janitors "- so we deserve a better deal basically -- basically put that they are "above" the working class folks that pay their wages , and that they "deserve" to be treated "special" because of it . they pay about $9 per month for coverage the janitor pays $ 50 -- 5 x times "differance" paid for the same coverage.

 

[FISHEYE]

Hobbit,

Pat Clyne is with the mel fisher group.They know more about this legal jargon then anyone here.I posted the bill on the mel fisher FB page as this bill affects everyone as Pat said in one of his posts,this is a trojan horse.

 

[hobbit]

Fisheye, I appreciate what you are saying. I am not a lawyer and do not claim to be. I would just like someone to explain to me why the bill does not "mean what it says". The terminology used is not that difficult. The official "summary of changes" on the FL Senate Website is even more clear and is pretty much stripped of legal jargon. I would love to drop this thing. I hope you and Mr. Clyne and everyone else who believes this bill will not affect us is correct. I just can't get around what the bill actually says. Maybe the text of the bill on the Fl. Senate website is incorrect or outdated or something...trust me: "I want to believe!"

 

[tarpon192]

Has anyone got word if it has past?

 

[ivan salis]

a " trojan horse" is something that on the "outside" at first glance looks "harmless" but is in effect is very "deadly" --it is what's "inside" the trojan horse , the "trick within" that kills you -- because of what "inside it" its not at all what it seems to be . --ie its a "trick"

in this case --there are several "trojan horse" type clauses

one bars trading or buying legally past obtained or owned "artifacts" *

section "c" line 60 to - 62 " OR OFFER TO SELL, PURCHASE ,OR EXCHANGE ANY ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCE EXCAVATED OR REMOVED FROM ANY LAND "

 

[FISHEYE]

They arent done with the bill yet.You see amendments and some are withdrawn an adopted.Effective Date: July 1, 2012.Im sure many more changes will be made due to US sending letters to the senators.Maybe it will help turn those "yays" into "nays".Its the power of the people.We put those so senators in office by our or your votes.

 

[lookindown]

Everything that you have found recently or in the future after july 1 2012.You found it 20 years ago before any law or bill pertained to it.Of course you dont tell anyone you found something.

You are exactly right...you are allowed to posess old items, so there is no way to enforce this law. Glad to see someone is thinking like me.

 

[lookindown]

Pat Clyne posted this link on Facebook.

Hi everyone, the Task Force for Metal Detecting Rights Foundation spoke with Pierce Schuessler (Legislative Affairs Director from the Florida Department of State), and apparently an older version of the bill was distributed within the metal detecting community where the words "all lands" were used. This error has been corrected. Florida SB868 and HB591 are not against people who metal detect. We have a full write-up on our website here


http://detectingrights.com/florida-sb868-hb591.php

Thanks FISHEYE, now maybe everyone can quit yelling "The sky is falling."

 

[ivan salis]

READ LINE 60 TO 62 SECTION C *

"or offer to sell , purchase or exchange any archaeological resource excavated or removed from any land"

nothing is said about any time frame limits --its says "any" artifact removed from "any" land .

the devil is in the details *

 

[FISHEYE]

No problem.Now im going to get back to finishing up my new biodiesel reactor so i can treasure hunt for free with my truck and boat.

 

[lookindown]

READ LINE 60 TO 62 SECTION C *

"or offer to sell , purchase or exchange any archaeological resource excavated or removed from any land"

nothing is said about any time frame limits --its says "any" artifact removed from "any" land .

the devil is in the details *

Anything you want to sell, purchase , or exchange, didnt come from Florida.

 

[hobbit]

I think I have it now: Pat Clyne is actually completely opposed to SB 868. He thinks it is a Trojan Horse and he cannot believe that the "Task Force for Metal Detecting Rights", (whoever they are), supports it. Mr. Clyne apparently has no connection with this "Task Force" and thinks they are "naive in the extreme"...

I am wondering if 1715 Lease Holders and sub-contractors will be able to receive any sort of compensation for their finds once this thing has passed...

 

[PyrateJim]

The one common denominator through the entire 6 pages of this bill is the addition of the words:

land owned or controlled by the state, 22 including state sovereignty submerged land, land owned by a 23 political subdivision as defined by s. 1.01(8),

A "political subdision" is defined by Florida statute as:

" 'Political subdivision' includes counties, cities, towns, villages, townships, districts, authorities, and other public corporations and entities whether organized and existing under charter or general law. [Section 22.03(5), Florida Statutes.]"

 

[Twisted One]

READ LINE 60 TO 62 SECTION C *

"or offer to sell , purchase or exchange any archaeological resource excavated or removed from any land"

nothing is said about any time frame limits --its says "any" artifact removed from "any" land .

the devil is in the details *

Anything you want to sell, purchase , or exchange, didnt come from Florida.

More or less you are saying that the laws passed are not a threat, because you can lie your way around it. In my, while not as educated as many here, especially when it comes to legal, or political topics, it does seem to me, that the more we try to find a way around the laws, or ignore them, the more they will make.
There needs to be a method to stand up against the law makers when they put their focus on something such as this. While this bill may not be, or at least not seem to be too big of a threat, it only take a well worded amendment, or addition to this bill to make it a very serious problem.