Litigator

The

Feds Lock Up One Million Acres of Energy Land

Spring 2012

MINERS SUE OBAMA ADMININSTRATION

The Litigator

A 117-year-old nonprofit, nonpartisan mining trade association with
thousands of members filed a lawsuit
in Arizona federal
district court against
the Obama Administration for its lock-up
of a million acres of
federal land in northern Arizona. The
Northwest Mining
Association (NWMA)
of Spokane, Washington, represented
by MSLF, asserts in its complaint that
U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazars January 2012 order
withdrawing the land from entry under
the General Mineral Law, which will
block access to hundreds of millions of
pounds of the highest-grade uranium
ore in the country, violates a host of
federal laws.

The NWMA asserts that the order,
which includes lands managed by both
the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) in the Arizona Strip, violates the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act (FLPMA),
the National Forest Management Act
(NFMA), and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The lawsuit also
complains that the FLPMAs provision permitting the Secretary to make
withdrawals in excess of 5,000 acres is
unconstitutional because it is linked
inextricably to FLPMAs legislative veto
provision, which unconstitutionally
permits Congress to veto Secretarial
withdrawal orders over 5,000 acres.

According to the U.S. Geological
Survey, an agency within the Department of the Interior, the lands with-

drawn by Secretary Salazars order

contain uranium that, if mined to capacity, would generate
enough electricity to
power Los Angeles
for 154 years.

Experts believe
the United States
must develop
domestic sources of
uranium in the face
of higher prices and
increased global
demand. America is
over 90% dependent
on foreign sources of uranium to fuel
the 104 nuclear reactors that provide
power for 1 in 5 American homes and
businesses. A major source of U.S. imports is uranium from dismantled Russian warheads; however, the agreement
under which the U.S. purchases that uranium expires
in 2013. There is currently
a global supply shortfall of
about 40 million pounds of
uranium per year, which
comes from existing stockpiles. With nuclear power
generation around the world
projected to increase substantially even after Fukushima these
shortfalls will increase and stockpiles
will dwindle. There are 435 nuclear
reactors operating worldwide, but, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute,
there are 65 reactors under construction
and 491 reactors planned or proposed
around the world. The World Nuclear
Association estimates that there will be
between 602 and 1,350 reactors in the
world by 2030, a 38% to 210% increase.
As a result, worldwide competition for
uranium will increase dramatically.

is published quarterly by
Mountain States Legal Foundation,
a nonprofit, public-interest legal foundation
dedicated to individual liberty, the right to
own and use property, limited and ethical
government, and the free enterprise system.

MOUNTAIN
STATES
LEGAL
FOUNDATION
Executive Offices:
2596 South Lewis Way
Lakewood, Colorado 80227
303-292-2021
Fax 303-292-1980

www.mountainstateslegal.org

The Arizona Strip, which lies north
of the Colorado River in northern Arizona, is bordered to the south
by the northern rim of Grand
Canyon National Park. In the
1984 Arizona Wilderness Act,
Congress designated 250,000
acres of federal land on or near
the Arizona Strip as wilderness
and released 600,000 acres of
land in the same area for multiple use, including uranium
mining, as a result of an historic compromise among environmental groups,
uranium mining interests, the livestock
industry, and others.

In July 2009, Secretary Salazar proposed to withdraw from operation of
the General Mining Law 633,547 acres of
BLM lands and 360,002 acres of National Forest lands in the Arizona Strip for
up to 20 years purportedly to protect
the Grand Canyon watershed from
adverse effects of locatable hardrock
mineral exploration and mining.
Page One

OBAMACARE ARGUED AND SUBMITTED

file their landmark lawsuit.

Whether the individual mandate of
After ObamaCare became
the Patient Protection and Affordable
law in March 2010, several
Care Act, or ObamaCare, is unconstilawsuits challenged its contutional is now before the Sustitutionality; most notable
preme Court of the United States
were the lawsuit by twenty
following an unprecedented three
seven States and other plaindays of oral arguments in late
tiffs, led by Florida, and the
March. Before each of the
lawsuit by Virginia. MSLF
nine justices in the standing
for its members across the
room only crowd in the
countryargued in amicus
historic Courtroom was
curiae briefs filed in federal
the brief filed by MSLF.
district courts and courts of

MSLFs role in deciding
appeals that the individual
the issues before the Court
mandate, which requires all
was not limited to its hardAmericans to purchase health
hitting friend of the court
care insurance or pay a fine, is
brief. The U.S. Court of Apunconstitutional.
peals for the Eleventh Circuit,
MSLF argues that Americas
which upheld the holding by a
embrace of limited government
Florida federal district
2010 by National Review, Inc.
Reprinted by permission.
of specific enumerated powers
court that the mandate
began in the pre-Revolutionary
is unconstitutional,
Days, continued through the Declararelied on a victory by MSLF (Mountain
tion of Independence, the Constitution,
States Legal Foundation v. Glickman) in
and the Bill of Rights, and has been
deciding the critical issue of whether
upheld by the federal judiciary, includthe States and other plaintiffs have the
ing the U.S. Supreme Court.
standing, or constitutional right, to

DOUBLE YOUR MSLF GIFT! TELL THE BOSS

Did you know that you might
be able to double your gift for free?
Thousands of companies match their
employees charitable contributions.
Matching gifts play a key role in helping MSLF fight its court battles. Please
ask if your employer has a matching

WEB PAGE POLL

gift program. Contact your human resources or personnel department to see

if your company will match your gift
to MSLF. Then, each time you mail
your gift, please include a matching
gift form from your employer. MSLF
will do the rest!

Visitors to MSLFs web site at www.mountainstateslegal.org responded
to the following question: The federal government says that it is like no other
landowner, in that it can alter the rules and need not adhere to any legal requirements. Is that right? One hundred percent (100%) said, No: In MSLFs defense
of George, Hull, and McMaster, the USA must be treated like any other landowner.
Zero percent (0%) said, Yes: The U.S. government is special; it holds land for the
public and must resist any attack on its title.

Vote on the new question at MSLFs web site today!

Remember, the best way to keep abreast of MSLFs precedent-setting, nationally-significant litigation is to check MSLFs highly acclaimed web site. MSLFs
web site is updated at least every week and often daily. In particular, check for
updates on MSLFs Legal Cases and Press Releases.

PENDLEYS VIEW

The United States of America is a
landowner like no other; sadly, federal courts agree! Consider MSLFs
cases from coast to coast!

The U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit in Denver recently
agreed with the U.S. Forest Service
that, when the agency sold land
in New Mexico to Annie Georges
predecessor-in-interest and preserved an undefined easement, the
agency could define that easement
as broadly as any authority set forth
in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Thus, landowners whose chain of
title includes the federal government
are on notice, not merely of documents conveyed at closing, but of all
rules published in decades past.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco
is being told by federal lawyers battling a lawsuit by Ken McMaster,
who owns a 20-acre placer claim, in
the Trinity Alps Wilderness Area, 45
miles northwest of Redding, California, that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) can refuse to convey
property to which Mr. McMaster
was entitled under federal law as a
result of his 1992 application and can
seize his private property because
the BLMs longstanding interpretation of the Wilderness Act changed
in 1998.

Finally, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in
Philadelphia is about to get a case
involving a dirt road that bisects a
New Jersey farm owned by Matthew and Michelle Hull and Matts
brother Aaron inside the Delaware
Water Gap National Recreation Area
(NRA), run by the National Park
Service (NPS). The NPS claims the
road even though, 20 years ago, it
refused to accept the road when the
local township tried to give it away.
A federal district court ruled that, as
a matter of equity, the NPS should
get the road.

No wonder people believe there
is a war against private property.

Page Two

NEVADA WILL OBEY SECOND AMENDMENT

A University of Idaho law student,
who often camps in Nevada,
prevailed in his lawsuit
against the State of
Nevada challenging
Nevadas ban on
possession and
discharge of a
firearm for selfdefense in state
parks. Al Baker,
a NRA-certified
Home Firearms
Safety & Basic Pistol
Instructor with a license
to carry a concealed handgun in
Idaho, Utah, and Oregon and an avid
outdoorsmen who camps in northern
Nevada, hours south of his residence in
Boise, won after Nevada amended its
code to conform with the 2010 ruling
of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding
Second Amendment rights. One of
the camping areas he has visited and
intends to visit in the future is the Wild

Horse State Recreation Area in Elko;

however, he was advised by Nevada
that he could not possess a
functional firearm in the
park. With MSLF as his
attorney, Mr. Baker
filed his lawsuit in
July 2010.
The Nevada
Division of State
Parks prohibited
possession of firearms
in state parks, with two
narrow exceptionsthat
is, an unloaded firearm inside
a vehicle and a concealed handgun
carried by a person licensed pursuant
to Nevada lawand prohibited the discharge of firearms, with no self-defense
exception.

Nevadas ban on firearms had prohibited possessing a functional firearm
when camping in Nevada State Parks or
face 6 month imprisonment, or a $1,000
fine, or both.

WOLVES TO STAY OFF SPECIES ACT LIST

When Congress ordered the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to
remove the northern Rocky Mountain
gray wolf from the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) list in Idaho and Montana, it
amended the federal law consistent with
its constitutional power, ruled a threejudge panel of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit. The ruling
was consistent with a brief
filed by MSLF on behalf
of itself and its clients, the
Montana Farm Bureau
Federation and the Idaho
Farm Bureau Federation.

In June 2009 when several environmental groups
sued to invalidate an April 2009 decision
by the FWS to remove the gray wolf
from the ESA list in Idaho and Montana, MSLF and its clients intervened to
defend the FWS decision. Nonetheless,
in July 2009, a Montana federal district
court struck down the FWS decision and
ordered the wolf back on the ESA list.

Subsequently, Congress passed and
President Obama signed a law that required the wolfs delisting and removed
the issue from future judicial review.
The environmental groups challenged
the laws constitutionality but the district
court upheld the law and the groups
appealed. The panel ruled
that Congress amended
the ESA by requiring the
wolfs delisting, which the
Supreme Court has held
Congress may do.
The gray wolf (Canis
lupus) once roamed the
northern Rocky Mountain
region; however, due to
their predation on livestock, the federal government permitted
their killing; by 1930, wolves had been
almost eliminated in the region. In 1973,
the FWS put the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf (Canis lupus irremotus) on the
ESA list. In 1994, the FWS captured
wolves in Canada and released them in
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.

TIMBER CASE OVER!

Two Montanans celebrated the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit affirming a July 2011
ruling by a Montana federal district
court that the U.S. Forest Service may
conduct a forest health project in an area
at risk for dangerous fires thus ending
a three year battle by environmental
groups to kill the plan. With MSLF as
their attorney, Janet and Ronald Hartman, who live year-round north of Wilsall, urged approval of the project in the
Gallatin National Forest twenty miles
northeast of Bozeman and parallel efforts by landowners and groups that are
key to curtailing catastrophic fires likely
to destroy forest resources, homes, and
buildings and endanger the lives of
residents, visitors, and firefighters.

In September 2010, the Ninth Circuit upheld an October 2009 ruling by
the district court authorizing the agency
to implement the project, but held the
Forest Service failed to meet elk cover
requirements. In March 2011, the Forest
Service satisfied those requirements.
Earlier, the Ninth Circuit, over the
Hartmans objections, stayed the district
courts ruling.

In May 2005, the Forest Service finished the Shields River Watershed Risk
Assessment to evaluate the risk of wildfire and insect loss to some 44,000 acres
in the Smith Creek/Shields River area.
In December 2007, the Forest Service
after comments from adjacent private
homeowners and State, county, and
local officials and groupsapproved
the Smith Creek Vegetation Treatment
Project to address dangerous fuel buildups and mitigate the risk of catastrophic
wildfire. The Project will reduce fuel
loads on 1,110 acres, in 10 separate units.
A local, quasi-governmental group
was formed to provide grants to local
landowners to conduct fuels reduction
projects on private lands.

In July 2008, environmental groups
challenged the plan. The Hartmans
intervened. In October 2008, the Montana federal district court ruled for the
Forest Service and the Hartmans on all
but one claim; however environmental
groups appealed.
Page Three

Injustice
by J. Christian Adams

Regnery Publishing, Inc.; ISBN: 1596982772

Hardcover - 256 pages (October 2011)

EXPOSED:
Lawlessness and Racialism Run Rampant in
Obamas Justice Department
As Americas premier federal law enforcement
agency, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is supposed to be color-blind and immune from party
politics.
Not so in the Obama Justice Department, says
whistleblower and former DOJ lawyer J. Christian Adams in his shocking new expos, Injustice:
Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice
Department.
Adamswho blew the whistle on the Justice
Departments handling of the infamous New Black
Panther Party voter intimidation casewitnessed
first-hand the DOJs aggressive radical agenda,
and is now revealing the truth about the most
lawless Justice Department ever.
Divulging never-before-published details
on several important casesincluding the Black
Panther caseInjustice exposes how the very
government department responsible for enforcing equal protection has been overrun by radicals bent on furthering a fringe political agenda.
The late Andrew Breitbart said, Injustice
is an explosive expose. And Michelle Malkin praises Adams book saying, If you care
about justice for all, Injustice is hands-down the most
important book youll read all year.
With everything from civil rights laws to Americas voting system at risk, Injustice shines a light on the corruption,
racialism, and radicalism that is running rampant in the Obama Justice Department.
J. Christian Adams served for five years as an attorney in the Voting Section of the DOJ Civil Rights Division,
where he brought cases to protect a variety of racial minorities, including blacks and Hispanics; he also brought the
first application of the Voting Rights Act to protect white voters. Once a general counsel to the South Carolina Secretary of State, he is now a practicing attorney and a contributing writer to Pajamas Media.

Injustice is FREE with a $50.00 contribution to MSLF;

see the COUPON on page 5. Autographed copies are also
available for gift giving.
Page Four

MSLF receives no government funds (except when it wins in court and the
judge orders the federal government to pay attorneys fees and expenses).

Mountain States Legal

Foundation (MSLF) Is A
Nonprofit, Public-Interest
Legal Foundation, That Is
A 501(c)(3) Organization,
Since Its 1977 Founding.

MSLFs sole source of support is the tax-deductible contributions of those

who support its aggressive litigation program.
MSLF is a nonprofit, public-interest I.R.C. 501(c)(3) corporation, which makes
the contributions it receives tax deductible.
MSLF is committed to the vision of the Founding Fathers: individual liberty,
the right to own and use property, limited and ethical government, and the
free enterprise system.

Therefore, Your Generous

Contributions to MSLF Are
Tax Deductible!

MSLF CANNOT REST;

ITS ROLE ESSENTIAL
TO REMAINING FREE

In 2012, MSLF will have been going
to court for 35 years, fighting to compel
compliance with the commands of the
Constitution and federal law to ensure
that America remains a nation of laws.
At no time during these three plus
decades has the need for MSLF to go to
court on behalf of those who could not
afford legal representation been lessened. In fact, as the federal bureaucracy
has grown and as federal laws have
become more far-reaching and intrusive,
MSLFs caseload has increased dramatically. That is obvious from a review of
the scores of MSLF cases.

Your Support Is Vital

If there is one lesson MSLF has
learned over the past 35 years, it is that,
regardless of which party occupies the
White House or controls Congress, the
threat to liberty remains and MSLF must
be ready, willing, and able to go to court
to defend freedom. As Thomas Jefferson once said, Eternal vigilance is the
price of liberty. One of the prices that
must be paid for MSLF to remain vigilant is the price that tens of thousands
of Americans pay annually by making
their tax-deductible contributions to
MSLF and its litigation.

The support of MSLF by tens of
thousands of Americans committed to
freedom could not be more important.
Your support will ensure that MSLF
remains IN THE COURTS FOR GOOD!

MSLFs commitment to the Constitution ensures that America remains a nation

of laws and not of men and that the rich liberty legacy of this nation continues.
MSLF does only one thing: it goes to court in defense of the Constitution,
strict adherence to the laws of the land, and those who cannot afford to hire
legal counsel to protect their rights.
Only YOU can ensure that MSLF may continue its vital work.

Problem
Solution
Reason

Federal, state, and local taxes take an ever-increasing share of

ones income.
Gift giving decreases taxes while advancing charitable goals.

u At a time when many mechanisms for legally lowering taxes have

been eliminated, the opportunities for reducing taxes by planned charitable giving
have been increased!

The Means u Income Tax Each year a person may deduct as much as 50 percent
of his or her adjusted gross income (AGI) for gifts of cash to a qualified charity; that
limit is only 30 percent for gifts of appreciated property.
Estate Tax A person who died in 2011 is entitled to an exclusion of up to $5,000,000;
however, estates in excess of that amount may deduct charitable gifts, by will or trust.
Because federal estate taxes over $5,000,000 range from 37 percent to 50 percent, for
every charitable gift of $1,000, the estate saves up to $500 in taxes. Please consult
your tax adviser.
u Contributions of stock can be made electronically to MSLFs brokerage
Stock
account DTC 0164. When transferring stock, indicate acct. #7080-3528,
Transfer
Information Charles Schwab & Co., 518 17th St., Suite 100; Denver, CO 80202.

(Adam J. Rehmer 303-260-5916; Fax: 303-260-5095). Please notify MSLF BEFORE making the transfer; there is no way to identify a stock donor without priornotification.
GIFT: $_____________ o$1000 o$500 o$250 o$100 o$50 o$25
o Check Payable to Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF)
o Credit Card ___MC ___Visa ___Discover ___AmEx

Credit Card #__________________________________________________________________

CVV# (3 digit code on back of card)_______________________________________________

Exp. Date______________________________________________________________________

Signature______________________________________________________________________

NAME (Please print)________________________________________________________________

ADDRESS_________________________________________________________________________
CITY_______________________________________ STATE_____________ ZIP________________
PHONE___________________________________________________________________________
EMAIL____________________________________________________________________________
o Yes, I want to help MSLF in its battles, including its fight against the Civil Rights Division.
o I made my contribution in the amount of $50, or more. Please send me Injustice.
o I have ADDED $10 to my $50 contribution; send me an autographed copy of Injustice.
MSLF is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit legal foundation; contributions are tax-deductible pursuant to law.

Page Five

FEDS BREACH CONTRACT; FAMILY SUES!

A Utah family that for many years
operated a commercial outfitting and
guest ranch business in the Ashley
National Forest in eastern Utah near the
Wyoming and Colorado borders, filed a
federal lawsuit charging that the U.S. Forest
Service breached its
contract with the family. Ed and Sherry Baltz
owned and operated
Rocky Mountain Recreation of Utah, Inc., which formerly did
business as the U-Bar Wilderness Ranch.
The Ranch, under a series of owners,
operated pursuant to Forest Service
special use permits for over 75 years.
In August 2002, the Ranch renewed its
business permit through 2022, a permit
that included a base area of 4.3-acres
where the Ranch maintained five guest
cabins and a main lodge, a bathhouse,
wranglers cabin, and corrals, which
were updated in June 2007, and included
electricity and running water. In June

2004, the Ranch renewed its outfitter (for

hunting and fishing expeditions) permit.
In 2007, the Forest Service effectively
vacated both permits. MSLF, which represents the family, filed
the lawsuit in the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims
in Washington, D.C.
In May 2005, a
mudslide on U.S. Forest
Service land entered the
Ranch permit area and
damaged a guest cabin.
Although the Forest Service took responsibility for the incident and asserted that
it would clean up the damaged area, it
did not. In the spring of 2007, the Ranch
complained to the Forest Service that it
had failed to keep a drainage channel
and culvert free of debris. In July 2007,
after a minor debris flow, which resulted
from accumulated debris in the channel
and culvert, the Forest Service issued a
Special Closure Order against the Ranch
and, in August 2007, suspended both
the business and outfitter permits.

U.S. SUPREME COURT VOIDS LAND GRAB!

In a unanimous ruling and consistent
with a friend of the court brief filed by
MSLF, the Supreme Court of the United
States reversed a ruling of the Montana
Supreme Court that had resulted in an
unprecedented seizure of private property. MSLF, with decades of experience in
constitutional and property rights issues
before the Court, for itself and the Utah
Farm Bureau Federation, had urged the
Court to overturn the Montana courts determination of navigability on the basis of
present day use and without performing a
section by section analysis of the rivers.

At issue was the Montana courts 2010
ruling that upheld a lower court decision
that PPL Montana, LLC, which replaced
the Montana Power Company and purchased its hydroelectric facilities and land,
owed Montana $40 million for use of its
riverbeds. Justice Kennedy, writing for the
Court, declared that the Montana ruling
was based on an infirm legal theory.

In 2003, two Montana citizens sued
PPL Montana and two other hydroelectric

companies in federal court seeking compensation for Montana for the companies
use of riverbeds under two federally licensed hydroelectric facilities and arguing
under the Equal Footing Doctrine that the
riverbeds are part of its school trust and
that they owed hundreds of
millions in unpaid rent to
Montana. After Montana intervened, the
court dismissed
the case in 2005.

PPL and the
other hydroelectric
companies then
sued in Montana
state court seeking a declaration that federal law precludes or preempts any claim
for compensation. Montana filed a counterclaim demanding back rent. After the
other companies settled, Montana moved
for partial summary judgment, arguing
that the Missouri, Madison, and Clark
Fork Rivers were navigable in 1889, when
Montana was admitted to the Union.

MSLF IS VINDICATED

A unanimous Supreme Court of
the United States ruled in favor of an
Idaho family in its battle with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
thus vindicated MSLFs fight for a New
Mexico man who sought to challenge the
EPAs determination that his arid lands
were waters of the United States. MSLF
urged the Supreme Court to overturn a
ruling that Michael and Chantrell Sackett
of Priest Lake, Idaho could not sue the
EPA to challenge its claim that use of their
land violated the Clean Water Act (CWA).

In the summer of 2007, the Sacketts
moved dirt on their property to build a
house on land with a sewer hookup, in
a developed area zoned for residential
construction. That November, the EPA
issued a compliance order declaring the
Sackett property to be a wetland under
the CWA, barring the Sacketts from building a house, and mandating that the Sacketts restore their land to its previous state
or pay civil penalties of up to $32,500 per
day. The Sacketts were denied a hearing
and their lawsuit in Idaho federal district
court was dismissed when the court held
the CWA bars judicial review of compliance orders prior to any EPA enforcement
action. In September 2010, the Ninth
Circuit upheld the district courts decision, ruling that the CWA bars judicial
review of administrative action, which
does not violate the Sacketts due process
rights. In February 2011, the Sacketts
sought Supreme Court review; they
are represented by Pacific
Legal Foundation.

MSLF brought
a case like Sackett
on behalf of a
veterinarian,
rancher, and
entrepreneur
named Larry
Squires of Hobbs, New Mexico. The New
Mexico federal district court held, as did
the Idaho federal district court in Sackett,
that Dr. Squires could not challenge the
authority of the EPA. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, as did the
Ninth Circuit in Sackett, upheld the lower
courts ruling. The Supreme Court later
denied certiorari.
Page Six

 LEGAL

ACTION
n A Colorado state district court awarded costs to MSLF for its victory
over an attempt to impose climate
change regulations.
n A New Mexico woman barred by the
U.S. Forest Service from fencing her
property lost her appeal before the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit in Denver.
n California miners briefed their appeal
with the Ninth Circuit in their attempt
to gain full use of their patented mining claims; their lawsuit was dismissed
by a California federal district court.
n On behalf of a Texas psychologist
denied her free speech rights regarding her profession, MSLF opposed
attempts by the State of Texas to
dismiss her civil rights lawsuit.

NOTABLE

QUOTES

n Fremont County, Wyoming lost its

appeal before the Tenth Circuit in the
culmination of a Voting Rights Act
lawsuit filed by the ACLU.
n MSLF urged the U.S. Supreme Court
to reverse a ruling by the Ninth
Circuit that Arizonas S.B. 1070, which
permits Arizona to address the impacts of illegal immigration, conflicts
with federal law.
n MSLF, which prevailed at the U.S.
Supreme Court in a landmark equal
protection case, urged the Court to
overturn a 2003 ruling by the Court
upon which the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit relied to allow the
University of Texas to grant admission based on race.
n On behalf of the Wyoming Stock
Growers Association and the Petroleum Association of Wyoming, MSLF
presented testimony before an Idaho
federal district court challenging
demands by an environmental group
for sage grouse related restrictions on
federal land use.
n MSLFs brief challenging the authority of the Environmental Protection

Agency to impose cap and trade

administratively was before a federal
appeals court during oral arguments
in Washington, D.C.
n On behalf of a Pennsylvania energy
association and the nations oldest
family owned oil and gas company,
MSLF urged a Pennsylvania federal
district court to issue a permanent
ruling against a sweetheart lawsuit
settlement entered into by the Obama
Administration.
n A Wyoming man whose takings
lawsuit was dismissed on technical
grounds by the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims briefed his appeal.
n MSLF returned to one of its earliest
victories, when, on behalf of itself and
two Wyoming groups, it was granted
the right to participate in a federal lawsuit demanding that the government
manage wild horses in Wyoming.
n On behalf of the Montana Petroleum
Association, MSLF appeared before
the Montana Supreme Court to preserve an earlier victory over environmental groups. MSLF Vice President
Steven J. Lechner argued the case.

You have been doing good work that
no one else seems to care about. Our government seems to be running amok.
Walter Wieben
Silt, CO

Congratulations on [the concealed
carry] win!
Joy Iris Staveley
Flagstaff, AZ

BIG HOORAY on your unanimous
Colorado Supreme Court victory!
James D. Santini
Alexandria, VA

Thanks for all you do in the grand
battles for our country.
Michael B. Enzi
U.S. Senator WY

Keep up the good work.
Warren J. Adler
Elmhurst, NY

Im glad you folks are around!
Robert H. Petersen
Susanville, CA

Keep up the good work!
Larry D. Goodman
Southampton, PA

Keep up the good work!
Col. John M. Butler, USMC-Ret.
Cedar Point, NC

Please keep up the good work.
James D. Tippett
Joseph, OR

God help all the wonderful things you
do, and get more to help you.
Sue R. Simpson
McFarland, WI

I hope you can help save the U.S.
Claude Jungman
Premont, TX

Keep up the good work.
Carolyn Veach
Lebanon, IN

Thank you for what MSLF is doing
for this country.
Ervin O. Schmidt
Everett, WA
Page Seven

MSLF WINS FOR GUN RIGHTS AT COLORADO SUPREME COURT

A national group and three of its Colorado members won
a unanimous victory at the Colorado Supreme Court when the
Court upheld the ruling of the Colorado Court of Appeals that the 2003
Colorado Concealed Carry Act (CCA)
bars the University of Colorado (CU)
Board of Regents from regulating the
use of concealed carry permits on
campus. Justice Allison H. Eid wrote,
We hold that the CCAs comprehensive statewide purpose, broad
language, and narrow exclusions
show that the General Assembly intended to divest the Board of Regents
of its authority to regulate concealed
handgun possession on campus.

Students for Concealed Carry
on Campus and three Coloradoans, all represented by MSLF,
prevailed at the Court of Appeals in April 2010, when a threejudge panel reversed an El Paso County state district courts
April 2009 decision and ruled that the CCA bars local rules,
such as those adopted by CU, that conflict with the Act and
that CUs ban on firearms in vehicles for self-defense is unconstitutional. In June 2010, the Regents voted 5-4 to appeal to the
Colorado Supreme Court; their petition was granted in October
2010 and was argued in June 2011.

Attorney David B. Kopel of the Independence Institute,
who filed a friend of the court brief at the Colorado Supreme
Court on behalf of the Institute and the
County Sheriffs of Colorado, said, It
is an especially impressive accomplishment for . . . a small public interest law
firm to win a unanimous state Supreme Court victory against an institution whose largest campus (Boulder)
has an annual budget of over a billion
dollars.
Amici curiae briefs in support of
MSLFs clients were filed by the
National Rifle Association, the Rocky
Mountain Gun Owners, and the
Second Amendment Foundation. The
Board of Regents received amici curiae
support from The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the
Colorado Ceasefire Capitol Fund, and the Greater Denver Million Mom March.

Colorados CCA, C.R.S. 18-12-201, requires an extensive background check. The Act has only four exceptions to
the right to carry: locations prohibited by federal law; K12
schools; public buildings with metal detectors; and private
property where notice is posted.

The lawsuit returns to El Paso County state district court.

Stephen M. Brophy, AZ: Chairman

John R. Gibson, UT: Vice Chairman
Frank Priestley, ID; Secretary
Peter K. Ellison, UT; Treasurer
John J. Blomstrom, WY
Karen Kennedy, WY
Ron Krump, NV
L. Jerald Sheffels, WA
Don Sparks, TX
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Janice K. Alvarado

VICE PRESIDENTADMINISTRATION

Steven J. Lechner

VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER

William Perry Pendley

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER

address service requested

2596 South Lewis Way

Lakewood, Colorado 80227

MOUNTAIN
STATES
LEGAL
FOUNDATION

Non Profit Organization

U.S. Postage
PAID
Denver, CO
Permit No. 847