Yes indeed, here we go again. Bundy was only the last in a long string of such confrontations on private rights on public lands.

However, there are many errors in the article on the history of mining claims. The Sugar Pine Mining Claim was not "set aside" by Congress just for local miners. The claim or claims as either placer or lode claims would have been entered under the 1872 Mining Law that provides for individuals to stake claims upon their own cognizance and provides a private right in subsurface mineral if as a lode, or placer value if within the creek bed gravels. This applies to many precious or base metal natural resources generally called hard rock mining. And includes the right to use the surface within the claim. Duh.

The staking and filing of the claims (at the time at the County Courthouse, the BLM did not get into the act until decades, decades later) establishes a private right in those mineral resources. The article says the BLM is claiming that because ownership changed hands that such "grandfathered rights" are no longer valid. While it may be true that a rogue BLM individual is trying to say that, it is not official BLM policy. Since when did a sale of a private right negate that private right under the common law? I know this because I am in the middle of permitting a gold exploration project on Forest Service "administered" public lands and they are under strict guidelines and know it, and know that we know it, that permitting of mineral activity is a non-discretionary issue. Meaning, it is a recognized private right that they cannot negate by fiat decision. Unless one of them tries to go rogue. And that would be a different matter.

As to the reporting in the article, there is no such thing as a "claims community regulatory system". Mining regulations are subject to "applicable" State and federal regulations. Note that I highlight "applicable". And here is the crux of the matter that the miners should be aware of. Under the peculiar situation called "dual sovereignty" resource producers on the public lands are subject to both State and fed jurisdictions with those that invoke the Supremacy Clause to say that if the feds regulations are tougher, i.e. exceed the States regulations on the same matter, than the feds would prevail. That is, unless and until the States exert their sovereignty over the public lands within their respective boundaries. But, as we have seen with the nearly every 20 year kabooki ritual in the western States, they don't have the backbone to do what they could. They are far too long beholden to the federal government.

This establishment of private mineral rights and the right to use the surface to access those minerals is something that a 1955 Surface Resources Act could not negate. And there is no mechanism for a specific intervention by the Department of the Interior to do so.

One thing the article did not mention, and that is critical towards interpreting this situation, is whether the claims are patented or not. The patenting process was a mechanism provided in the original 1872 Mining Law that converted the surface extent of the claim or claims to private fee title lands. And most claims, especially this old, that could stand the Proof of Mineral process required were most certainly patented. If this is the case, these lands are private and the BLM has NO authority at all. Now, in 1993, Congress attempted to gut the 1872 Mining Law (as amended over the years) by declaring a moratorium on the patenting process. This did not gut mineral claims from creating a private mineral right, but disallowed anymore public land to be converted to private land under this mechanism. Just think about it, the towns of Vail, Silverton, Sun Valley, Virginia City, Prescott and hundreds more in the west would not exist as they are based upon private land originally created under the 1872 Mining Law.

Finally, there is no way in hell that there are 90 million ounces of gold in this district. I used to work at the Goldstrike Mine in Nevada, which is still the largest gold producing mine in the world and it has produced 40 million ounces over the last 25 years.

“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.”
Ayn Rand

I was reading some more on this and the BLM is trying to pull an even more questionable action in this case, as they are demanding that the miners remove all equipment AND buildings - despite the fact that they have been mining this area since before the BLM was even created. Additionally, they have no court order justifying their position, nor have they answered the miners petitions clarifying which specific acts they are accused of violating.

This is a power grab - plain and simple.

Hello Zenphany,
Thanks for posting this, I hadn't seen anything on it. After the Bundy standoff I told my family "it didn't start this time, but this is how it will start". Are we running out of time to prepare? Have we completely run out of time to prevent it?

The Ovomit administration is overtly antagonistic towards individual rights. They know that by grabbing people's land and healthcare, they're halfway to the communist state they desire.

If this isn't the one that turns Waco and Ruby Ridge, the next one probably will. Crazy!

find out who the government employee is that has TOLD the blm to do this. if there is 90 million ounces of gold still to be harvested the government wants it. Zenphany is correct in thinking that one day someone will pull the trigger.

Same as it ever was.
What kept the feudal barons in power? Land ownership. It is land ownership that created the Royals and kept the rest as serfs unless they had a trade. It's easy to see how the people in DC are evolving into a new royalty, with special privileges and powers and the seizing of land is needed if they are to manage our lives.

What is the status of the efforts in courts?

Bureaucracies tend to assume the power of a deity, assuming the right to punish or reward without justification. On an objective level, it does look like a legal resolution is possible, if the BLM obeys the rules set down in Federal law, but then that wouldn't demonstrate the power of the state, and would actually require them backing down after having set up this stupid confrontation.

It may well be that the 1955 act would require Congressional legislative action to allow the BLM to enforce regulation of grandfathered claims. Given the Republican control of that body, the administration isn't about to open that can of worms. The question is whether or not the government is seriously weighing if a violent confrontation could be pictured as "domestic terrorism" before deciding how strongly to act.

Not only does this sound like Ruby Ridge and Waco again, I could easily see this turning into the non-fiction version of D'Anconia collapsing his own mines.

For any of you who are planning an AR-15 build, SMOS Arms is offering a "Sugarpine Mine" 14" rail for $100. All proceeds go to support the claim owners. http://www.ar15news.com/2015/04/17/smos-...