Patented Mining Claims, Private property, but with reservations. Options

[Goldshark]

I have read on this forum that patented mining claims are private property, and no longer mining claims, In which they have 100% control over every aspect of that patent grant. That is not correct. If you will look at the patent grant, it comes with something called "reservations". These are the conditions the Government stipulates on the land during conveyance. They will cover such things as sideline or endline boundary rights, Water or ditch water rights, and always a reservation stating that the given state in which the PATENTED MINING CLAIM is located, will mandate the rules and regulations pertaining to its complete development. This is for patented lode claims. The patented placer claim will have similar reservations for lode, but the difference is whether they paid the additional money for any claimed lode deposits which were known to exist. If you did not pay the $5.00 for the addition of the potential lode, vs $2.50 per acre for no known lode, your reservation will state that it may be entered by others for it's extraction. LOOK AT THE PATENT GRANT RESERVATIONS! Then find section 34 of the COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, MINERALS SECTION. This will give you all the answers to the questions you will have concerning the mining laws for that state.

If everybody would read their states revised statutes, there would be a lot less animosity for others, more understanding for what happens in mining law pertaining to PATENTED and UNPATENTED MINING CLAIMS. The laws pertaining to PATENTED and HOMESTEAD grants usually are different pertaining to the minerals granted. Once again, unless I am unclear, a PATENTED MINING CLAIM is private property, and still a mining claim, with reservations withheld from the grantee, but still must comply with the state mandated mining law. Until it is rezoned, by law, it is still a mining claim.

[Clay Diggins]

I have read on this forum that patented mining claims are private property, and no longer mining claims, In which they have 100% control over every aspect of that patent grant. That is not correct. If you will look at the patent grant, it comes with something called "reservations". These are the conditions the Government stipulates on the land during conveyance. They will cover such things as sideline or endline boundary rights, Water or ditch water rights, and always a reservation stating that the given state in which the PATENTED MINING CLAIM is located, will mandate the rules and regulations pertaining to its complete development. This is for patented lode claims. The patented placer claim will have similar reservations for lode, but the difference is whether they paid the additional money for any claimed lode deposits which were known to exist. If you did not pay the $5.00 for the addition of the potential lode, vs $2.50 per acre for no known lode, your reservation will state that it may be entered by others for it's extraction. LOOK AT THE PATENT GRANT RESERVATIONS! Then find section 34 of the COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, MINERALS SECTION. This will give you all the answers to the questions you will have concerning the mining laws for that state.

If everybody would read their states revised statutes, there would be a lot less animosity for others, more understanding for what happens in mining law pertaining to PATENTED and UNPATENTED MINING CLAIMS. The laws pertaining to PATENTED and HOMESTEAD grants usually are different pertaining to the minerals granted. Once again, unless I am unclear, a PATENTED MINING CLAIM is private property, and still a mining claim, with reservations withheld from the grantee, but still must comply with the state mandated mining law. Until it is rezoned, by law, it is still a mining claim.

It's true that mining claims that have gone to patent are now private property subject to the same laws as all other similarly situated private property. State, County, and municipality laws apply equally to all private property. The fact that your patent derived from a mineral claim doesn't give your private property any special rights under those laws.

It's also true that the reservations expressed in the grant travel with the title. Those, and other, reservations are in every single title to private property outside of the original 13 states. Every bit of those lands were granted by the federal government and all of them contain reservations of rights to the United States. In fact mineral patents are the most expansive of the federal land grants, homestead grants have even more reservations.

It's not true that mining claims that have been granted patents are still mining "claims". You might well mine on your private property but your right to the minerals are no longer a "claim" - you now own the minerals privately. There is no such thing as a "patented mining claim" in federal law according to the U.S. Supreme Court:

"It is true that there are no very distinctive words declaring what kind of adverse claim is required to be set up as a defense against the party making publication; but throughout the whole of these sections, and the original statute from which they are transferred to the Revised Statutes, the words `claim' and `claimant' are used. These words are, in all legislation of congress on the subject, used in regard to a claim not yet perfected by a title from the government by way of a patent"
Iron Silver Mining Co. v. Campbell, 135 U.S. 286 (1890)

That's not the only case where the Supremes got cranky about the use of the words "patented mining claim" to describe private property.

Read the Iron Silver case. It's important for several reasons beyond explaining the false nomenclature in using the term "patented mining claim". It also specifically addresses your false assumption that placer claims that have gone to patent are still subject to lode mining claims. There is no such reservation in a placer patent. It just ain't so. That's what the Iron Silver case was about and the adverse lode claimants had their error explained to them in detail.

Of course you can call your private property the Great Gold Patented Mining Claim or Silly Sally. It's your land and what you name or call it isn't going to change the law. If you want to actually mine in Colorado you will need a state permit whether you have mineral rights to a federal mining claim or you have mineral rights on private property.

[Goldshark]

[font="Arial"][/font]

It's

If you have ever read the Colorado Revised Statutes, Section 34, Minerals, you will see that the State still refers to rights pertaining to PATENTED, and UNPATENTED mining claims.Since the State ultimately dictates the rules for mining on Patented mining claims, it is their way of stating the rules. Not my rules. Look it up.

true that mining claims that have gone to patent are now private property subject to the same laws as all other similarly situated private property. State, County, and municipality laws apply equally to all private property. The fact that your patent derived from a mineral claim doesn't give your private property any special rights under those laws.

It's also true that the reservations expressed in the grant travel with the title. Those, and other, reservations are in every single title to private property outside of the original 13 states. Every bit of those lands were granted by the federal government and all of them contain reservations of rights to the United States. In fact mineral patents are the most expansive of the federal land grants, homestead grants have even more reservations.

It's not true that mining claims that have been granted patents are still mining "claims". You might well mine on your private property but your right to the minerals are no longer a "claim" - you now own the minerals privately. There is no such thing as a "patented mining claim" in federal law according to the U.S. Supreme Court:

"It is true that there are no very distinctive words declaring what kind of adverse claim is required to be set up as a defense against the party making publication; but throughout the whole of these sections, and the original statute from which they are transferred to the Revised Statutes, the words `claim' and `claimant' are used. These words are, in all legislation of congress on the subject, used in regard to a claim not yet perfected by a title from the government by way of a patent"
Iron Silver Mining Co. v. Campbell, 135 U.S. 286 (1890)

That's not the only case where the Supremes got cranky about the use of the words "patented mining claim" to describe private property.

Read the Iron Silver case. It's important for several reasons beyond explaining the false nomenclature in using the term "patented mining claim". It also specifically addresses your false assumption that placer claims that have gone to patent are still subject to lode mining claims. There is no such reservation in a placer patent. It just ain't so. That's what the Iron Silver case was about and the adverse lode claimants had their error explained to them in detail.

Of course you can call your private property the Great Gold Patented Mining Claim or Silly Sally. It's your land and what you name or call it isn't going to change the law. If you want to actually mine in Colorado you will need a state permit whether you have mineral rights to a federal mining claim or you have mineral rights on private property.