What do yall think of this guys youtube clip ?

[Tom_in_CA]

What do y'all think of this guy's youtube clip ?

I was surfing around on youtube recently, and came across this guy's 2009 youtube clip. As you can see, he's a lawyer, and apparently someone asked him to comment on the law, as it relates to using your detector on public land. So he launches here into an answer. What do y'all think of his answer?



Focussing on other forms of land besides federal (for discussion sakes), he advises his viewers to:

"......go to the governing authority of that land to make sure you have their agreement and authorization to detect"

Huh? I can understand doing that if there was a rule saying "no metal detecting". Then ... sure .... get authority to metal detect. But he makes no such distinction as to whether his advice is for places to which there is a prohibition. It's just a blanket statement that md'rs should go asking for (basically) "permission" or "authority" or "authorization", wherever they come to.

I think he's got it bass-ackwards. Since when does an individual need "express permission" to do a given activity, if there's no rules forbidding that activity? For example: following his advice to its logical conclusion, should persons go "seeking authorization" to fly a frisbee? (assuming there's no rules forbidding frisbee flying, that is). Of course not! One assumes he can fly frisbees, unless told otherwise, right?

Seems to me that the only thing his advice does, is further the image (by the very nature of thinking you need to grovel) that there is something inherently evil, or damaging, or wrong, that you had to ask, to begin with (lest why would you be asking, if it were innocuous?). Thus merely dictating the answer you will get from the desk-bound clerk often-time. And often-time at places where no one ever cared before, or gave the matter a second thought, till you came in with your "pressing question".

I sleuthed further, and found that the fellow has a website for his lawyer practice. And as such, has a "contact us" tab there. I sent an email asking him to reconsider his stance. Asking: "why does an individual need express permission to do something, if there were no particular rule against a given activity? Why can't an individual look up the rules for himself, and if there is no prohibitions, then presto, why can't that be his answer?". So far, I have received no reply.

If anyone else wishes to send him a note along those same lines, here's his website (and just go to the "contact us" tab): Clearwater Divorce Attorney | St. Petersburg Family Lawyer | Child Custody Largo Florida

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Terry Soloman]

Try to understand Tom, he is a lawyer. The poor thing. You and I both know common sense stops at the courthouse door.

 

[thrillathahunt]

I think that lawyer's interpretation is open for interpretation.

 

[Silver Worm]

I hope no one paid him to render that advice!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Yes, I realize lawyers are inclined to see "assasins hiding under every rock". And keep up the "... you can't be TOO safe" attitude (lest they wouldn't get business, if people didn't cause people to fear the unknown ). That part I understand. It's the part about people seeing this, and running out and doing exactly as he suggests that worries me. Because this simply leads to places enacting rules (by virtue of decisions passed down to answer the "pressing question").

The skittish person that hears a LAWYER say this (afterall, "lawyers know EVERYTHING, and .... oh no ..... you wouldn't want to get SUED, now would you?" ), and runs out and does just that. That's the part I believe is a poison, that I wish wasn't there. And technically, as I say, he is simply mistaken legally. You do NOT need "permission" or "authorization" to do a chosen activity, if there is no prohibitions saying you can't. Therefore the correct legal advise would be ..... if someone is skittish, they're welcome to look up the codes and rules in their city, for themselves. No need to be sanctioned, permissioned, or authorized, etc.... if there is no express dis-allowance.

To that extent, I think the fellow needs to be called to the carpet. I mean, sheesk, he's a lawyer, so you think he could be shown the logical steps of this. Seems if we show him the logical fallacy of his position, perhaps he'll correct it. I dunno.

 

[jeff of pa]

key word on the second half of his rant

"Federal" we all know federal land is protected.

on the first half he was correct it varies from park to park.
I won't give anyone legal advice but, Being I metal detect for recreation,
if the place is there for recreation I recreate

also these days Health nutz build trails for exercise also.

So when I see those signs, I become health conscious
and exercise by walking, swinging my arms & doing deep knee bends

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Sure we can all agree that fed. is (technically) governed by ARPA. So I restricted my disagreement to the part about all other public land. And sure the rules vary from "park to park". Agreed. But that does not therefore lead to his conclusion that we must therefore be "authorized" to detect. On the contrary, it simply means to look up the rules and codes (if one is skittish) in their "park to park" excursions. If there's nothing there saying "no detecting", then ....... presto, there's your answer.

So the fact that rules vary from "park to park" still does not logically lead to his conclusions.

Anyone else out there going to drop him a line?

 

[jeff of pa]

Since he is not sitting here talking to me,
I wouldn't waste my time on him actually

Just tell the Lawyer My time costs $200 an hour

What does he charge ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Yeah, I know, probably a waste of time to alert him to such a thing. Afterall, it's in their best interest to tell you the horrors that await you, at every turn. Oh well. I had the though that a lawyer with integrity, who is shown the logical legal error of something he posted for public view, might want to pull back something which doesn't withstand legal scrutiny. But like you say, probably a waste of time. Oh well.

 

[chakra22]

Yes is is right--

Yes is is right--
Yes just go on line, say if you want to hunt in a state park EX. in michigan you can can hunt certain parks in only certain areas they will have a map too and some you cant hunt at all

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

Yes is is right--
Yes just go on line, say if you want to hunt in a state park EX. in michigan you can can hunt certain parks in only certain areas they will have a map too and some you cant hunt at all

Chadra22, I'm confused, when you say "he is right", what is he right about? If you referring to the fact of rules differing from place to place (or even the lack of any rules to begin with on the subject), sure, that part of his clip is right. But after that, he is not right. Even you yourself say to ".... just go on line...." [to get information as to whether there are rules or not]. Fine. I agree. But that's NOT what he's saying for people to do. He is (in essence) telling them to go seek authorization (aka permission) from every entity they come to. That's a far cry from what YOU are saying to do, which is for a person to look up potential rules, for themselves.

The fellow may be mistaken in thinking that whomever the md'r asks, will have the burden of proof on them, to CITE an actual law or code or whatever. But unfortunately, that's not what often happens. Instead, the deskbound person he tells you go to grovel at, can simply give an arbitrary "no", simply because they said so. And if you try to debate them and say .... "but where is that written?", it can simply go downhill from there (where they can morph any silly thing they think applies). So .... if someone is waiting for the desk-clerk to produce and cite an actual statue or law or code, well then GEE, that simply means the md'r could accomplish the same thing, and go look it up for himself afterall. And if it's silent on the subject (no specific prohibition of metal detecting), then presto, there's his answer!

 

[River Hound]

Ive got nothing polite to say so I wont

 

[foiler]

Whose the dumass that asked a 'divorce attorney' a question about MDing? crap in crap out

 

[coinbug]

He's exactly right when he says you have to be very careful on public land - anything owned by the government, and that different jurisdictions vary markedly even within the same general area. Also anything "archeological" especially native can get you in trouble (the guys that are into the latter generally know that).

I live in British Columbia, Canada. In our National Parks, you can be charged for taking a worthless rock, never mind a fossil. Don't even stop in one of our National Parks unless you intend to follow the rules scrupulously and are willing to take the time to learn them. But in Provincial parks, you are generally OK with just obeying the signs they put up, and on Crown land you could set off nuclear devices without too much trouble unless and until someone complained (I'm kidding a bit, but you get the idea).

We worry more about private land, and trespassing and so on, but it's publicly owned land that is far more dangerous for us: private land owners have fewer remedies, and far more common sense than government has (as a rule).

 

[Tom_in_CA]

He's exactly right when he says you have to be very careful on public land - anything owned by the government, and that different jurisdictions vary markedly even within the same general area. Also anything "archeological" especially native can get you in trouble (the guys that are into the latter generally know that).

I live in British Columbia, Canada. In our National Parks, you can be charged for taking a worthless rock, never mind a fossil. Don't even stop in one of our National Parks unless you intend to follow the rules scrupulously and are willing to take the time to learn them. But in Provincial parks, you are generally OK with just obeying the signs they put up, and on Crown land you could set off nuclear devices without too much trouble unless and until someone complained (I'm kidding a bit, but you get the idea).

We worry more about private land, and trespassing and so on, but it's publicly owned land that is far more dangerous for us: private land owners have fewer remedies, and far more common sense than government has (as a rule).

Sure, you "have to be very careful on government land". And what better way to do that, than to look up the rules for oneself, and follow them? I mean, how much more "careful" can you be.... than THAT? And if there is nothing there forbidding what you're doing, then presto, you've been "careful"? So to "be careful" does not mean to go grovel begging for no's, when no one really cared (till you asked).

As far as someone being "charged for taking a worthless rock" Please oh please let us know where such an incident happened. Can you cite such an incident? I mean...... really now.... for pete's sake....... my daughter picks up pretty seashells on the beach or park, and I'll be durned, she's never been "charged" (although I'm certain it falls afoul of laws forbidding "harvesting" and "collecting", right?)

If you can cite such an incident, it's got to be some exception of some rogue over-zealous cop, or a guy who can't take a warning, night sneaking sensitive monuments. If not, and if someone was really "charged with picking up a rock", then here's what I have to say about that: SO TOO is there probably stories of a motorist pulled over, charged with having a tail-light out, roughed up, ticketed, and had his car confiscated. Ok, so what. Sure, "extreme exceptions" do occur. But at what point are you going to stay at home, cower, and refuse to drive "lest you get arrested" ?

 

[coinbug]

Tom, I can certainly cite incidents in our National Parks where persons have been charged with stealing a rock, feeding a bun to a coyote, and entering a closed off area to use the outhouse. These examples are just off the top of my head.

In our Provincial Parks, there's more common sense, and on Crown Land you almost have to go looking for trouble to find it.

My point was that you have to know your jurisdiction, and that your risks are far higher on public land than on private. I'm betting that's the same in the States as in Canada.

--------------------

As a practical aside, when you are dealing with an over-zealous official be polite (I don't mean confess or admit anything necessarily, just be respectful and friendly). There is often a lot of paperwork involved - even in prosecuting a ticket - and they may prefer to forget about it if they're not miffed at you personally.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...... you almost have to go looking for trouble to find it.....

Your quote above is probably a good way to put it. On the one hand, anyone of us, if we all "asked enough questions", using the right buzz-words ("treasure", "dig", "artifact", "holes", "indian bones", etc...) we can ALWAYS find ourselves a "no", even at the most innocuous of sandboxes, RIGHT? But as you say, *realistically* , you practically have to go looking for trouble, to find it. There is always the potential (albeit remote), that there's an over-zealous cop out there who's in a bad mood, blah blah.

One time I was waiting my turn in traffic court, to contest a parking ticket. I watched as the cattle-call of others there, ready to enter their plea, also got up and got their moment to speak. I couldn't believe as one poor gal was asked to enter her plea as to whether or not she was guilty of jay-walking. She replied "not guilty". At which point the judge schedules her for a date to hash that out. And a part of me was thinking "ah c'mon, ... JAYWALKING? do any cops really give tickets for jay-walking?". But sure, it's probably *technically* on the books at city hall, that if one shoe step of yours drifts out of the cross-walk, that you're jay-walking. But *realistically*, we all jaywalk, and no one ever cares (barring unless you're being a major nuisance I suppose, or barring that you have a really bored cop in a bad mood).

 

[doc-d]

A great example of making the simple, complex........

 

[justdugcrazy]

There are times where I wish that people would just say "sure go ahead just show me what find but most of the time it was metal detectors that have no respect for History or other hunters when they dig and leave holes and totally understand some of the land owners own race horses and they would be crazy to risk a 250,000 horse because of someone's ignorance

 

[Clayton Bardwell]

There are rules and laws governing metal detecting trespass just as there are rules governing fishing and hunting.

Metal detecting, fishing, and hunting are a privilege not a right. It is our responsibility to know the rules and laws that pertain to our sport. These laws presume that you may metal detect with certain restrictions and under certain conditions.

Know the laws, go metal detect within the confines of the law, have fun!