May 16, 2013 2:00 am  •  By HENRY BREAN — Las Vegas Review-Journal

According to the complaint, the State of Oregon is in violation of Federal Law

April 23rd, 2013

Grants Pass, OR – Southern Oregon’s oldest profession is currently under attack by legislation that is currently being considered by the State Legislature. For over 160 years, especially during hard economic times, people in Southern Oregon have looked to the area’s hills and streams for an income, gleaning gold and other valuable minerals from the land through hard work and sheer determination. In 1872, the United States Congress granted the People of the United States with a protected right to go upon certain tracts of the nation’s vast Public Domain to search for and to extract valuable minerals such as gold, silver, copper and platinum.

As the Second Pan American Scientific Congress explained it in 1917, “This was the first instance where a sovereign broke away from the old regalian right and voluntarily ceded to her citizens as a gift, all her mineral wealth on the sole condition that the citizen should go out and possess it.”

Indeed, Congress had “revolutionized the whole land policy of the Government, abdicating in the name of the Nation its authority and jurisdiction over the richest mineral possessions on the face of God’s earth”, for the sake and welfare of its citizens.

In Oregon, this unique right of the American people is currently being threatened by the introduction of several senate bills, SB 401 and SB 838. The bills, which were introduced by Senator Alan Bates (D-Ashland) and subsequently passed by the Senate Environmental and Natural Resources Committee which is chaired by Senator Jackie Dingfelder (D-Portland) and vice-chaired by Bates seek to ban placer mining on certain waterways and place a five year moratorium on all motorized mining inside the State of Oregon. The legislation is also being supported by Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber.

After most elected officials turned a deaf ear toward their concerns, miners within the Galice Mining District, which was organized in 1853 in what is today a portion of Josephine County, Oregon, voted unanimously on April 7th, 2013 to take legal action against Bates, Dingfelder, Kitzhaber and also Senator Peter Courtney who is the President of the Oregon State Senate. The miner’s lawsuit calls for a preliminary injunction against the anti-mining bills and requests that the federal government intervene to assess the legality of the proposed legislation.

“It’s our position that the legislation is patently unlawful,” said Kerby Jackson, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Galice Mining District. “We believe that the senate bills intend to usurp the will of Congress and are in violation of the 1872 Mining Act and the Oregon Admission Act of 1859, as well as Contract, Property and Supremacy Clauses of the United States Constitution and certain provisions of the Oregon State Constitution. We also believe that Mr. Bates and the other respondents are engaging in criminal behavior that is intended to violate the rights of miners in this state.”

“Federal law is clear,” Jackson said, “states and local governments may not ban locatable mineral mining”.

The case is being heard by the United States District Court based in Eugene, Oregon.

For more info, contact: kerbyjackson@mail.com

Washington, DC – Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) today voted in favor of the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act, a measure that would provide much-needed accountability to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). H.R. 1062 requires the SEC to perform a cost-benefit analysis before enacting any new major regulations.

“Regulations created by federal bureaucracies have a huge cost to Americans of every economic status and restrict job creation,” said Representative LaMalfa. “Overreaching regulations increase the cost of energy, food and nearly everything we consume. This bill is a common sense requirement that the government perform a detailed cost-benefit analysis before major regulations are enacted. If the costs out weight the benefits and harm employment, it is clear that the regulation doesn’t help America or our taxpayers. There’s simply no reason that the government should enact rules without knowing their economic impact.”

The bill requires the SEC to evaluate the costs and benefits of accessible regulatory alternatives, including the option of not regulating, to determine the most cost-effective approach.  HR 1062 passed the House floor on a vote of 235-161.

Congressman Doug LaMalfa is a lifelong farmer representing California’s First Congressional District including Butte, Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou and Tehama Counties.

Washington, DC – Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) today voted in favor of H.R.45, a measure he co-sponsored to repeal Obamacare. This is the first opportunity for freshmen members in the 113th Congress to take a stand on the issue. The Affordable Care Act, a 2,801 page bill, passed in 2010 through a Democrat House and Senate and signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010. The law constitutes perhaps the most drastic expansion of the federal government in our nation’s history.

“I promised voters that I would support any legislation that repeals the federal health care takeover passed in 2010, and replace it with real reforms that lower health care costs without expanding government bureaucracy.  This is a promise I am proud to keep and I will continue to work to give health care decisions back to patients and doctors,” added LaMalfa. “Americans expect and deserve access to affordable, quality health care that addresses their needs and does not prevent growth and job creation for small businesses.”

The Obama administration’s own independent actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) found that the health reform will actually increase the cost of health care, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that premiums for individual health coverage policies will be significantly higher than if Congress did nothing. The studies found that some states could see insurance costs increases by as much as 200%.

“Three years later, Obamacare has failed to be affordable or accessible as promised, even after more than $2 trillion in new spending and $1.1 trillion in new taxes.  Instead, families, individuals, and businesses are facing the realities of the President’s health care takeover – higher premiums, increased bureaucracy and costly tax hikes,” LaMalfa continued.  “With federal budget deficits at record levels and millions of families struggling to make ends meet, we simply can’t afford this new government health care takeover.”

Congressman Doug LaMalfa is a lifelong farmer representing California’s First Congressional District including, Butte, Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou and Tehama Counties.

Jack Minor

In a deliberate move to catch gun control activists off guard, an organization representing Colorado sheriffs in a lawsuit over a series of recently passed gun control laws abruptly announced the filing of the suit in federal court today.

“We did that deliberately,” David Kopel, an attorney with the Independence Institute, which is handling the case, said. “We wanted to catch our opponents who support gun control off guard.”

As recently as Wednesday, the Independence Institute was suggesting the filing was still a few weeks off. Appearing at a rally against another bill, Amy Oliver Cooke, wife of Weld County Sheriff John Cooke, said they were planning to file the suit in the next couple of weeks.

The suit, which was filed in federal district court, lists 54 out of the state’s 64 sheriffs as plaintiffs in the case.

Kopel says what is significant to note is that while not all sheriffs are party to the suit, not a single sheriff has come out in opposition to it.

Cooke had harsh words for critics in the media and others who questioned whether a government official should sue another government official.

“Some in the media … asked me if I think it’s a good idea or if it’s appropriate for [a] government official to sue another government official. My response is unequivocally yes. It is our duty and responsibility as sheriffs to protect the people who elected us and whom we serve.”

At a recent event in Fort Collins by the Independence Institute providing updates on the case, Cooke said he was proud that gun control supporters are nervous over the lawsuit.

“When we announced our opposition to these gun control laws, the Greeley Tribune ran a story titled, ’48 Sheriffs going Rogue on Guns,’” Cooke said. “They should be fearing us. What right does the state have dictating how many rounds of ammunition [a woman] can have to defend herself?”

The lawsuit isn’t just limited to law enforcement officials, but lists a variety of organizations including the Colorado Farm Bureau, which has expressed concerns about rural farmers and ranchers having to deal with predators, Women for Concealed Carry, and the Colorado Outfitters Association.

“We have a diverse number of plaintiffs in this case. We are celebrating diversity,” Kopel said. “The difference is we actually believe in genuine diversity.”

Cooke noted that the lawsuit was not a partisan issue, with Republican and Democratic sheriffs both taking part in the lawsuit.

“This is not about urban versus rural as the governor likes to portray it,” Cooke said. “We have rural and urban plaintiffs in this case. It is about the Constitution. It is about the 2nd and 14th amendments. The suit is about our way of life, our freedoms, our rights, our liberties which transcend political affiliation and place of residence.”

Within minutes following the announcement of the filing of the suit, Republican Atty. Gen. John Suthers, who will be defending the state in the lawsuit, finally issued a statement providing guidance to law enforcement on how they are supposed to enforce the new laws.

Under the existing laws, any magazine that holds greater than 15 rounds, or can be modified to hold greater than 15 rounds, is now illegal to purchase in the state. The problem is nearly all magazines are designed with features that make them readily expandable to hold more than 15 rounds. The law’s wording effectively bans all magazines in Colorado.

Suthers said in the guidelines that magazines “must be judged objectively” and that a magazine holding 15 rounds or fewer cannot be defined as “large capacity” just because it can be modified to hold more.

While those currently possessing magazines greater than 15 rounds, the law prevents the transfer of any of these magazines. The wording states the grandfather clause only applies as long as the holder “maintains continuous possession” of it. Cooke and other sheriffs have pointed out that based on this wording, anyone who gives their magazine to a gunsmith or asks for help on a shooting range with a jammed magazine is now violating the law.

Suthers said “an owner should not be considered to have transferred a large capacity magazine or lost continuous possession of it simply by handing it to a gunsmith, hunting partner, or an acquaintance at a shooting range.”

However, the problem is Suther’s statement is just what it says, guidance, and it does not hold the force of law. Any officer can choose to disregard Suther’s recommendations anytime he chooses in favor of the plain text of the law.

The lawsuit also claims the gun control measures violate the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as individual civil rights.

Dylan Harrell, one of the disabled plaintiffs in the case, said his disability, which confines him to a wheelchair often makes it more difficult for him to defend himself or his family. He also noted that as an outdoorsman, when exiting his vehicle he needs help.

“I often request the assistance for the safe handling of my firearms anytime I am transferring from a wheelchair to an ATV or another vehicle,” Harrell explained. “It is now against the law for me to even seek assistance anytime I am transferring my firearms for my wheelchair to another vehicle. I am filing this lawsuit on the half of all Coloradans with disabilities such as my own.”

The suit noted that disabled citizens often find it difficult to change magazines quickly, which could be a serious threat to their life if their weapon is needed for self-defense.

Colorado’s far left government this year is controlled by Democrats in the governor’s office, in the House and the Senate. They rammed through a number of gun restrictions and limits – at the behest of the White House.

During debate over the gun control measures, the vast majority of citizens testifying before the legislature were opposed to any new gun control laws. However, frequently their testimony was dismissed and treated with disdain by Democratic lawmakers who seemed to have already made up their minds about passing the laws.

State Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Westminster, scolded a witness opposing one of the gun restrictions.

Amanda Collins, 27, of Reno, Nev., was telling her story of being assaulted and explained that had she been carrying a concealed weapon, the incident might have ended differently.

“I just want to say that, actually statistics are not on your side even if you had a gun,” Hudak scolded. “And, chances are that if you would have had a gun, then he would have been able to get that from you and possibly use it against you.”

Hudak continued, speaking over the committee witness, “The Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence says that every one woman who used a handgun in self-defense, 83 here are killed by them.”

Finally able to resume her testimony, Collins said, “Senator, you weren’t there. I know without a doubt [the outcome would have been different with a gun].

“He already had a weapon,” she told the meeting of the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee. “He didn’t need mine.”

http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/sheriffs-sue-their-own-state-over-gun-laws/

A recent settlement agreement between federal land management agencies and environmental litigators over how to protect a slew of species in northwestern forests was struck down by the 9th Circuit Court, which ruled that the settlement violated federal laws requiring public participation for major rule changes.

The court’s ruling has received plaudits from the logging and ranching industries, which have strongly criticized environmental litigators’ practice of cutting deals with federal agencies by suing the agencies and then modifying agency rules in closed-door settlement agreements—a tactic commonly known as “sue and settle.”

“That was a sweetheart deal between the environmental organization and the agency,” said Ann Forest Burns, vice president of the American Forest Resource Council (AFRC). “We’re hoping that this is a wake-up call, and will stiffen the spine of the agencies to make sure that the public processes are followed.”

In the case in question, 11 environmental groups, including Conservation Northwest, Oregon Wild, and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), sued the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) over a 2007 joint agency decision to eliminate “survey and manage” standards from the Northwest Forest Plan, which governs the management of over 24.5 million acres of forest stretching from San Francisco to the Canadian border. The standards outline management for nearly 400 lesser-known species— such as lichens, fungi, slugs and arthropods—defined as “ecologically crucial.”

Long criticized by the timber industry for hamstringing the approval of timber contracts, survey and manage standards require the agencies to conduct extensive research on the species and protect them from logging. “It was essentially a poison pill that was put in at the end of the Northwest Forest Plan,” Burns said. Burns added that the survey and manage standards “keep the Northwest Forest Plan from functioning appropriately,” since they prevent logging from occurring at the levels originally envisioned by the plan’s authors.

In 2011, a federal district court ruled against the agencies, determining that their decision to scrap the survey and manage standards, which the agencies claimed were excessively costly and onerous, had violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The agencies and the environmental groups then privately revised the survey and manage standards, which were subsequently approved by the district court in a consent decree.

D.R. Johnson Lumber Co., interveners in the case, appealed the decision, claiming that the settlement had shut them and other stakeholders out of the rule-making process.

In its April 25 ruling, the 9th Circuit agreed, stating that the district court had committed an “abuse of discretion;” since the settlement had created new survey and management standards—essentially amending the Northwest Forest Plan—it had side-stepped statutory public input requirements for new rule making.

“Because the consent decree in this case allowed the Agencies effectively to promulgate a substantial and permanent amendment to Survey and Manage without having followed statutorily required procedures, it was improper,” the court wrote in its opinion.

NEPA, the National Forest Management Act, and the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act all require agencies to solicit public input before making major changes to land use plans.

Although the timber industry is chalking up the decision as a major victory, environmental advocates are not ready to concede that the ruling constitutes a serious blow. According to Susan Jane Brown, staff attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center, the timber industry has also engaged in sue and settle tactics, making the ruling equally relevant to industry litigation.

Brown called the timber industry claims that the ruling will rein in environmentalists’ sue and settle tactics “extremely disingenuous,” adding that industry litigators, specifically on the Western Oregon Plan Revisions for O&C lands in southern Oregon, engaged in the same sue and settle maneuver during the Bush administration.

“I would be very careful about throwing stones at glass houses if I was the timber industry on that issue,” said Brown. “This outcome has reinforced the fact that we’re [all] going to have to be very diligent when coming to a settlement agreement that may result in changes in land management. That cuts both ways, whether you’re an environmental litigant or a timber litigant.”

Brown also suggested that the 9th Circuit’s decision to toss out the settlement and revert back to a 2001 version of the Northwest Forest Plan while proper public input procedures are observed actually hurt the timber industry’s interests. By contrast, Brown maintained that the settlement agreement—lack of public input notwithstanding—was much friendlier to timber interests than the 2001 rule.

“What had been negotiated as a result of the settlement agreement that had been overturned […] allowed additional logging to go forward without surveys,” claimed Brown. “What the timber industry has done is reinstate all of the requirements to survey and buffer […] which means there will be more surveys, less logging, more buffers, more money spent, more time spent than under what we were trying to do with this settlement agreement.”

Brown concluded that the timber industry’s legal approach “doesn’t make a lot of sense,” given that the net result is that “there will probably be less logging.”

Though it remains to be seen exactly how this recent ruling will affect litigation strategies against federal agencies, timber and grazing interests are optimistic that the decision will make it harder for environmental groups to cut deals like the now notorious 2011 settlement between CBD and USFWS, which required USFWS to fast-track endangered listing decisions on 757 species, including the greater sage grouse and Mexican grey wolf. It is also unclear whether previous settlements that involved substantive rulemaking changes could be challenged anew given the 9th Circuit’s opinion.

At very least, Burns of AFRC is optimistic that future settlements will leave room for the public to weigh in. “We hope that since the Circuit has decided it, this it’s going to apply throughout the 9th Circuit and that we will stop having quite so many instances where the environmental organizations, sue, [then] settle without any input through the public process.” — Andy Rieber, WLJ Correspondent, andyrieber.com

Watch, Oxbow take an early lead and keep it !  Wow.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/18/triple-crown-foiled-kentucky-derby-winner-wont-make-history-after-preakness-upset/

Yreka Tea Party Patriots

Meeting for Tuesday, May 21,   6:30PM

Decision Life Church Corner of Main and Oberlin…1301 South Main St. Yreka

Program:

Proposal to fund an Ambulance district in North County. 

Speakers:  

Siskiyou County Supervisors Marcia Armstrong, Michael Kobseff and Bernie Paul, Local Head of Cal Fire.

The Committee against Common Core will also give a report on the Montague School Board Meeting which we attended last Wednesday.

Free, Public welcome   Contact Louise for more information at              530-842-5443.

LOS ANGELES — A California law that requires all semi-automatic handguns to be equipped with technology that stamps its identifying information on bullet casings is now in effect after years of delays.

Though signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007, the law couldn’t take effect as it was supposed to in 2010 because of patents on the technology, including at least one that had been bought up by a gun rights group to delay the law’s implementation.

On Friday, Attorney General Kamala Harris officially certified and announced that patents were no longer an issue. Former state Assemblyman Mike Feuer, who authored the law, hailed it as a “monumental day for law enforcement” and said it was the first such law to go into effect in the nation. Other states, notably New York, have looked at such a law, but have had troubles getting it passed.

“This very important technology will help us as law enforcement in identifying and locating people who improperly and illegally use and discharge firearms,” Harris said.

The law doesn’t impact the more than 1,200 guns already on the state’s official firearm roster. Only new or modified semi-automatic handguns sold in California must be equipped with the technology that “microstamps” a bullet casing with a code identifying a gun’s make, model and serial number whenever the gun is fired.

New guns are not often added to the roster and one is not expected this year, said Lynda Gledhill, a spokeswoman for the Attorney General’s Office.

Gun rights groups argued that the law was an effective ban on new guns because of the burdens it places on manufacturers.

“Manufactures are not going to create a special run of firearms with all of these very burdensome manufacturing technologies just so they can comply and produce firearms for one market,” said Brandon Combs, executive director of the Calguns Foundation, a gun rights group based in San Carlos, Calif.

The Calguns Foundation extended a patent by paying a $555 fee, Combs said. He said the group was planning to conduct an “audit” of the state Department of Justice to determine whether the patents were truly “unencumbered.” The group has challenged requirements of the state’s handgun roster as unconstitutional in a federal court filing.

Feuer, who is running for LA city attorney, said the law would likely extend to other states which had been “looking to California to see if our law goes into effect.”

About 40 percent of California’s homicides are unsolved each year, most of which involve guns, Feuer said, but “we can do something to change that.”

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/18/5430874/calif-law-takes-effect-on-microstamping.html#disqus_thread#storylink=cpy

National IRS Tax Protest

Tuesday, May 21st   4pm – 6pm

 Corners of Cypress and Hilltop Drive

Redding, CA

Redding Tea Party invites all freedom loving Americans to join us for a peaceful protest against the IRS and government abuse of power.

 
 Bring your signs so that people understand WHY we are there!

Don’t Tread On Me Flags are also appropriate!