US District Court upholds miner's right to explore

[Mad Machinist]

Everyone needs to read this!!!

https://www.mining.com/us-court-uph...lds-miners-rights-to-explore-on-federal-lands

Some are out there fighting tooth and nail for our rights.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[russau]

I'm going to pass this along to ALL that I know ! Thankyou for posting this IMPORTANT INFO !

 

[Mad Machinist]

Reason for the Nutty Ninth to look at the dredging "ban" in Commiefornia. Of course they will uphold the "ban" which means it can be appealed to SCOTUS. And with Justice Barrett's appointment, I like our chances.

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

Can someone break this down for the layperson?

I'm not understanding the importance other than further erosion of rights was prevented.

How does it relate to the dredging (ban) permit scheme?

 

[Clay Diggins]

This court decision was just upholding the law that already exists. The groups that sued are trying to change the existing mining law through the courts. The court told them to take a hike.

There is no precedent here. Just some environmental non profits raising money. They are free to continue to raise money for silly court cases and they most certainly will continue to fool their supporters into donating for more nuisance suits because they could never actually get enough support to change the mining laws.

No relation to the California dredging non-ban. Other groups will continue to raise money for silly court cases that won't change the California dredging non-ban.

Isn't freedom grand?

Heavy Pans

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

Thanks. It’s still good news. We could use more of that.

 

[Mad Machinist]

This court decision was just upholding the law that already exists. The groups that sued are trying to change the existing mining law through the courts. The court told them to take a hike.

There is no precedent here. Just some environmental non profits raising money. They are free to continue to raise money for silly court cases and they most certainly will continue to fool their supporters into donating for more nuisance suits because they could never actually get enough support to change the mining laws.

No relation to the California dredging non-ban. Other groups will continue to raise money for silly court cases that won't change the California dredging non-ban.

Isn't freedom grand?

Heavy Pans

I will respectfully disagree here Clay. As they upheld a "rught" not a priviledge. So as a " right" no permitting scheme can be put in place. So it will need to be fought in court all the way to the top

In the meantime, tell Cali to suck sand. Pun intended.

 

[Clay Diggins]

I will respectfully disagree here Clay. As they upheld a "rught" not a priviledge. So as a " right" no permitting scheme can be put in place. So it will need to be fought in court all the way to the top

In the meantime, tell Cali to suck sand. Pun intended.

Thanks for the respect.

Unfortunately the court didn't rule on any rights. It was an administrative procedures challenge under the Administrative Procedures Act - not a mining rights challenge. The court ruled that the BLM agency rules, procedures and regulations they have been using were "reasonable" and "permissible" and "The BLM did not abuse its discretion".

If you read the case you will see that the environmental groups were challenging the BLM's rules, regulations and procedures. Mining rights were not at issue, only how the BLM conducted their business with mining claimants. There was no trial or testimony, the court gave summary judgement to the BLM based only on the initial filings in the case.

In other words it was a slam dunk for the BLM because the environmental groups didn't have a case - which they knew because they had already lost a nearly identical case in the same court in 2003. Read Mineral Policy Center v. Norton. That's the case they were relying on to change BLM regulations and in this case they were complaining that the result of that case meant something different than what the court ruled. They were wrong then just as they are now.

I suspect if the same groups try to sue on this issue again they will be classed as vexatious litigants and prevented from filing. The court doesn't allow "do overs" when they have already ruled on an issue. They even hinted in this most recent judgement that these groups were being looked at very closely to determine whether they even had a right to sue on these issues.

It's a good case for the BLM because they can go on with their administrative business as usual. It didn't change a thing about how the BLM handles mining claims or mineral rights.

Heavy Pans