Paul Louly New Member Posts:81 
| 22 Aug 2016 05:14 PM |
|
| What was the largest contributing factor / misunderstanding for the California Supreme Court ruling against suction dredge mining in California? | | Negative environmental impact of suction dredging. (7) |  28% | | States right to regulate mining on federal land. (4) | | 16% | | Political interference. (11) | | 44% | | Inability of Rinehart to prove California Law contradicted Federal Law, violating the Supremacy Clause. (2) | | 8% | | Other (Comment) (1) | | 4% |
Voice your opinions above (or below) to help prospectors understand and gain ground in our ongoing Land Rights Battle.
Read the GPAA Article here - http://www.goldprospector...les-against-Rinehart
Read the official court ruling here - http://www.courts.ca.gov/...ocuments/S222620.PDF
for the love of prospecting,
the Gold Prospectors Association of America & the Lost Dutchman's Mining Association |
|
|
|
ADAM ANDREWS Greenhorn Posts:
| 22 Aug 2016 07:10 PM |
|
It's simple really...The commie liberal anti-mining left wing party has 0 (zero) respect for private property rights, and 0 (zero) respect for your 1892 Mining Act rights...And 0 (zero) respect for your 2nd Amendment rights...0 (zero) respect for your...(This could go on for pages and pages) 
Adam A
|
|
|
|
ROBERT BEANGreenhorn Posts:
| 23 Aug 2016 11:53 AM |
|
|
I am but a simple person but it would seem that the state court has the ideal that it was not proven that the people ( State) were not violating the right to mine but that the claimant did not prove the that the states law was in the wrong to govern the law on federal land if congress does not specifically state a code to handle the ordinance in question. Yah, I know this sounds like lawyer speak but if the laws were written in plain English then lawyers would be out of jobs.
|
|
|
|
ROBERT BEANGreenhorn Posts:
| 23 Aug 2016 12:05 PM |
|
|
If we had this as an environmental case then that would be a totally different thing , then we could address the out flow of a dredge and the dispersal of the material down stream. We would be able to bring up the compliance of those others who discharge into that river. State federal and local along that river would be under fire for discharge by reg standards.
|
|
|
|
BRANDON JOHNSONNew Member Posts:38
| 24 Aug 2016 01:02 PM |
|
It was very disappointing to hear that the CA Supreme Court ruled against Brandon Rinehart and the mining community. I would really like to know who it was established, in the opinion of the CA State Legislature, that dredging has so many harmful impacts!?! If the act of dredging contaminates the water and harms people, wouldn't dredgers downstream be the first to feel it? To date I know of nobody who has died from second hand dredging. It sounds like attorney's for Rinehart attempted to make the case that dredging has negligible impacts on the environment, especially when done strictly within the river banks. Tom Massie has said for years that natural flooding each year moves significantly more material than all of us dredgers combined. After seeing some of these floods in the CA Motherlode (Near I-Bar) I tend to agree. |
|
|
|
Joseph Loyd Buzzard Posts:553
| 25 Aug 2016 08:02 PM |
|
|
I have said this on other sites .Take note of all the liberal judges names ,and when they come up for re election let it be known to vote agains't them .
|
|
|
|
BRANDON JOHNSONNew Member Posts:38
| 01 Sep 2016 09:17 PM |
|
We are currently in the process of writing an article, explaining the source of the "environmental impacts" the California Supreme Court cited in it's decision, but for those of you who can't wait:
http://www.theminingallia...ies_damned_lies.html
The Western Mining Alliance, in April of 2014, put out a great article in which they attempt to help us (simple minded Miners) understand the lengths our State goes to in order to protect us common folk!  Enjoy
|
|
|
|
ARTHUR WAUGH Advanced Member Posts:967
| 02 Sep 2016 11:34 AM |
|
|
Should this proceed further, I hate to say it, but the 9th Circuit is not a friend, as 99.9% of the time they rule in favor of the enviornmental side. And should it proceed to the USSC, there is no guarantee that they would even take it on. Then you have probably a split bench right now, and depending on who wins in Nov., could win or lose if they did take it on.
|
|
|
|
WILLIAM MYERSGreenhorn Posts:5
| 06 Oct 2016 04:13 PM |
|
|
I hate to say it, but the California Supreme Court was correct in it's ruling. There used to be a saying when I was a kid in the 70's and early 80's- "You don't have to make a federal case out of it..." I think that phrase needs to make a comeback. We the People are putting WAY TO MUCH confidence and faith in the "Federal" government. That is in quotes because We the People don't treat it as such. The California Supreme Court absolutely did.
That said, I think the way to fight this stupid ban is in the state of California. You do have an uphill battle, but it is what it is. Californian miners and those friendly to mining are going to have to come together and prove to the "scientists" that they are wrong and amend California's laws to reflect that. That is a federal system.
The court did have the answer- the light at the end- They are without authority to countermand the Legislature's judgment- But the people of California are not without that authority. They have to fix their Legislature.
|
|
|
|
ADAM ANDREWSGreenhorn Posts:
| 06 Oct 2016 09:04 PM |
|
Welcome William, we do indeed need new leaders in Ca. to get the Sierra Club out of the 1872 Mining Act |
|
|
|
WILLIAM MYERSGreenhorn Posts:5
| 06 Oct 2016 10:50 PM |
|
|
Thank you for the welcome.
If you really dig into the court's opinion, and the article in the Pick and Shovel, you'll see that the 1872 Mining Act will not be the answer to this. The laws and legislators in California have to be changed. It really is a State of California issue. If you drag the National government into it, odds are they will side with the enviro-nuts and there will be a National ban on dredging.
|
|
|
|
ADAM ANDREWSGreenhorn Posts:
| 07 Oct 2016 07:22 AM |
|
Wow, we have a lot of work to do. I thought of it like the 1872 Mining Act was as important as the 2nd Amendment. I know Ca. would get rid of it all together. We're surrounded by tree hugging commies in Ca. There's little hope of getting fair Senators when Frankenfeinstein & Boxer breath are in charge. |
|
|
|
Kenneth SwinefordNew Member Posts:33
| 08 Oct 2016 05:58 AM |
|
|
The California Supreme Court more than likely got the law right, when trying to use the 1872 mining act as your basis for mining the Court reasoned that the Act allowed you to mine, it allowed you to file for a claim and under state law you could still do so. If you listened to the Justices they also reasoned that the Law doesn't say how you can mine your claim or that you are guaranteed a profitable venture. Remember the Issue before the court was did the moratorium stop his right to mine and the answer the court gave was no. It placed a restriction on the methods but he could surely still mine just not in a way he found favorable or profitable which was tough luck as with any mining venture you roll the dice. California is just now getting a dose of what was allowed to happen a long time ago in many of the eastern states. Now it is expanding to farming in the east. Many people confuse prospecting with mining, when you start to remove amounts of minerals from the ground for profit, you are mining and no longer a prospector. Ask why the big mining companies don't jump into the fray when these things come along. What you need is to find a friend in the Legislature.
|
|
|
|
ADAM ANDREWSGreenhorn Posts:
| 08 Oct 2016 09:05 AM |
|
To half of America, the Ca. Supreme court never does anything right. They have a disgusting intentional political bias which disqualifies them period. They are a joke, nothing more than clowns in robes. They NEVER do the right thing. They always spit in the faces of law abiding red blooded Americans. Everything the Ca. Supreme court does is for their anti American environmental extremist agenda (KGB style one party system) For that reason, everything they do against you...The Ca. Supreme court kisses the rear ends of the Sierra Club, and the rest be damned.
In conclusion...Clowns in robes, one sided, biased, who rule against you and your rights every chance they get should be removed & be sent back to law school until they understand that this is NOT Putin's KGB one sided rule. This IS America, where we should have fair judges who rule on the law...Not biased judges who's sole purpose is to be a political hacks for a political agenda. A vote for Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife...Is a vote against your Gold panning future.
|
|
|
|
WILLIAM MYERSGreenhorn Posts:5
| 15 Oct 2016 03:44 PM |
|
You do have a lot of work to do. You have to replace your State representation in your State legislature. Then you have to replace your national representation, although the feds are not the answer to anything.
The 1872 Mining Act and the 2nd amendment only apply to the FEDERAL government. The mining act was meant to not let the federal government sell the land that you have claimed for mining out from under you. The 2nd amendment means that the federal government can not make any rules about arms ownership. (Yes, the National Firearms act of 1934 is unconstitutional, along with the Gun Control act of 1968) Like I said before, if you want the federal government to make the rules on how to mine, you will likely end up with a ban on much more than dredging in ALL of the states. |
|
|
|
WILLIAM MYERSGreenhorn Posts:5
| 15 Oct 2016 03:44 PM |
|
You do have a lot of work to do. You have to replace your State representation in your State legislature. Then you have to replace your national representation, although the feds are not the answer to anything.
The 1872 Mining Act and the 2nd amendment only apply to the FEDERAL government. The mining act was meant to not let the federal government sell the land that you have claimed for mining out from under you. The 2nd amendment means that the federal government can not make any rules about arms ownership. (Yes, the National Firearms act of 1934 is unconstitutional, along with the Gun Control act of 1968) Like I said before, if you want the federal government to make the rules on how to mine, you will likely end up with a ban on much more than dredging in ALL of the states. |
|
|
|
WILLIAM MYERSGreenhorn Posts:5
| 15 Oct 2016 03:47 PM |
|
Sorry for the double post. My internet was slow...  |
|
|
|
ROBERT GALYANNew Member Posts:64
| 19 Oct 2016 11:42 AM |
|
|
I no longer do prospecting / dredging vacations in California. The money we used to spend there is now spent in other states. Im not sure how many other families now stay away, but figure $2000 up per family per week, average 2 weeks. $ not injected into the CA economy.
|
|
|
|