Posted on 04/17/2015 10:23:14 AM PDT by redreno
GRANTS PASS -- A man who owns a gold-mining claim on federal land in southwestern Oregon asked for help defending it after U.S. authorities ordered him to stop work, but he is now telling his armed supporters to back off.
Rick Barclay said Thursday that he hoped to prevent his fight with federal regulators from turning into the kind of high-profile standoff at a Nevada ranch last year.
He initially called in a local chapter of constitutional activists known as the Oath Keepers because he thought the U.S. Bureau of Land Management would seize the equipment on his mining claim outside Grants Pass. The agency had served an order to stop work at the mine after finding it lacked the necessary paperwork.
Armed activists started showing up Monday at the mine and a rural property about 20 miles away, Oath Keepers spokeswoman Mary Emerick said. She said the group was still recruiting people to help provide security for the mine but would not say how many activists were there
(Excerpt) Read more at oregonlive.com ...
Sounds like he’s got a deal being negotiated right now ... :-) ...
BREAKING: Militia Moves to Prevent Another Waco
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOrU2jImMGg
The new BLM should drive pickups and have, at most, firearms that would be legal in the State in which they are operating and limited to the maximum number of rounds permitted by state law. No body armor. No SWAT teams. No APC’s.
The militarization of domestic agencies is one of the most disturbing innovations of the Obama administration. In fact, their enforcement powers should be limited to nicely asking local sheriffs to do their enforcement.
In addition, their mandate should be to privatize 75% of the land owned by BLM within five years to American citizens only.
These were the additional 100 thousand police officers Clinton put on the streets.
He just handed these idiots guns and said, “Here, you’re a police officer.”
Take their damned guns back. “There, you’re no longer a police officer.”
I don’t know the history of the land in question. How did the feds acquire this land? If it was merely with the stroke of a pen then the land wasn’t acquired constitutionally imo.
The problem at Bundy Ranch was not with Oath Keepers, but with out of control militia wannabes, some of whom claimed military resumes which were false. All Oath Keepers at the Oregon site have certain skill sets which have been verified.
You are part correct; the BLM should be permanently disbanded and all federally administered land, excluding National Parks, should be returned to the states to be administered by the states.
The BLM is separate from the National Park Service.
And much of the National Park Service should be tried under R.I.C.O.
“We are not looking for Bundyville. We are not looking to challenge anything. We are just holding our constitutional rights and property rights in reserve until we get our day in court,” Barclay said.
He and his partner, George Backes, believe they do not have to file an operations plan demanded by the Bureau of Land Management because they hold the surface rights on the mining claim, Barclay said. The claim has been continuously owned since 1858, predating the Bureau of Land Management’s authority and other mining laws, he said.
Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/business/national-business/article18711264.html#storylink=cpy
So the mining claim predates the BLM by several decades, but the BLM says their paperwork is no longer valid, so we can kick you off it.
To my knowledge, basically the only way that the feds can control land in the USA is by buying it, corrections welcome. And the land must be purchased under the terms of either the Constitution’s Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I, or under the 5th Amendment’s imminent domain clause.
So the first question is this. Did the feds purchase the land in question by paying for it under the terms of the constitutional statutes referenced above, or did they wrongly acquire it merely with the stroke of a pen?
5.56mm
“...believe they do not have to file an operations plan...”
I’m not sure what an operations plan is, but I guess it would be something along the lines of how they will operate the mine, and showing how they will be complying with the existing laws of today. If so - that seems reasonable. (Of course many of the new rules go too far, but they are the rules).
In 1858 nobody cared if your cynanide leaching process dumped straight into the creek. A very poor practice obviously.
I’m very pro mining, and would guess that there is more to this and/or I’m mistaken on what an operations plan is.
Rick Barclay, owner of the mine, is interviewed.
At the 11:30 minute mark he says he wants the oathkeepers there to protect his property to allow him to have due process.
At the end of the video is a website to donate
http://www.oathkeepersjoco.com/
14 Minutes
A New Oath Keepers Stand Off with the BLM? Not quite…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D9LUAS_mWg
Related thread:
UPDATE on BREAKING NEWS: OREGON GOLD MINING STAND OFF WITH BLM….NEXT BUNDY RANCH
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3279214/posts
Regarding “his property” does he own the land or just the gold mining equipment?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.