• Follow Us:
  • ICMJ on Facebook
  • ICMJ on Twitter
ICMJ's Prospecting and Mining Journal - Online Magazine
Search: Search
  Entire Site Articles Only
Login | Not A Member? Subscribe   FAQ   Contact Us

ICMJ Newsletter Vol. 1, No. 5

Celebrating our 82nd Year!

ICMJ Newsletter, Vol. 1, No. 5 February 26, 2013
 
A FEW ITEMS OF CONCERN...

Several pieces of legislation are pending that could negatively impact prospectors and miners and we wanted to bring these items to your attention.

Oregon
Attacks on Miners in Oregon
Oregon Senator Alan Bates pushes for restrictions

Three separate bills have been introduced in Oregon to shut down mining.

Senate Bill 401 would designate countless rivers and streams as "scenic" to restrict suction gold dredging. A one-quarter mile easement is included on each side of the river or stream.

Gold-bearing waterways that would be placed off-limits to miners include major portions of the Applegate River, Cow Creek, Grave Creek, Illinois River, Sucker Creek and the Rogue River.

Senate Bill 370 would impose a $125 fee on placer miners on private, state or federal land, and include a penalty...  Read More
 
Miners Rally at Oregon Capitol Building!
February 28, 2013, 1pm to 5pm, rain or shine

The environmental left has made it clear that their goal is to destroy the $10+ million dollar small-scale gold dredging industry. This attack is their follow-up on their success in California. They do not care that science comes down on the side of the miners...  Read More
Suction dredging
California Suction Gold Dredging Update
 
The latest hearing on the suction gold dredging moratorium in California took place February 14 in front of Judge Gilbert Ochoa in Rancho Cucamonga.
 
Nearly 50 miners showed up to lend their support.
Judge Ochoa set up a calendar for the case, with the most important date being July 24, 2013. This is when attorneys representing the miners will seek summary judgement and an injunction to get California suction gold dredgers back in the water immediately.
The case calendar is as follows:
March 15, 2013: Deadline to file amendments.
April 15, 2013: Deadline to file responses and pleadings.
May 15, 2013: Deadline to file opposition arguments.
June 15, 2013: Deadline to file replies to opposition arguments.
July 24, 2013: Hearing on demurrers and above mentioned arguments at 9am. Judge Ochoa will also address summary judgement and the requested injunction.
 
Guns and The 2nd Amendment
Commentary by Scott Harn, ICMJ Publisher and Editor
 
Following the tragic deaths of twenty children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, some -- including the current administration and many legislators -- have called for greater restrictions on guns.
 
When you place additional restrictions on the rights of law-abiding citizens, those who chose to ignore laws in the past will not suddenly choose to follow those laws.
 
Owning a firearm is a choice, and there are differing views on whether a person should own a firearm to protect his or her family. However, the right to own a firearm is not a choice; it's a right established by the 2nd Amendment.
 
Now I'm going to share something personal. Unbeknownst to most of our readers, I have some experience with firearms from my previous career. Prior to purchasing the
Mining Journal some fourteen years ago, I was a law enforcement officer. I worked for two different agencies as a patrol officer, training officer, property crimes detective, juvenile crimes detective, and as an undercover narcotics detective over a span of thirteen years. I experienced first-hand what happens when a criminal uses a firearm, and the tragedies that can occur when a person chooses not to protect his or family with a firearm.
 
My experiences helped shape my opinion, and in my opinion is this: law-abiding citizens
must retain the right to bear arms to protect themselves and any government effort to restrict this right must be thwarted.
 
Yes, I believe criminals, children and mentally ill citizens should not have the same right.
 
Our Founding Fathers had the foresight to establish our right to bear arms following attempts by those in power to disarm the citizens at large. The right to bear arms is not only necessary to protect our homes and families, but to keep those in power in check.
 
We can all agree that what happened at Sandy Hook was a tragedy, but to restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens is to invite additional tragedies in the future.
 
Other Links of Interest
Scott Harn
Editor/Publisher
ICMJ's Prospecting and Mining Journal
831 479-1500
 
STAY CONNECTED 
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter