Page One

TheLitigatorU.S. ForeSt Service takeS Land For traiL

WYoMinG Man at U.S SUPreMe coUrtSpring 2013The Litigatoris published quarterly byMountain States Legal Foundation, a nonprofit, public-interest legal foundationdedicated to individual liberty, the right to own and use property, limited and ethical government, and the free enterprise system.

MOUNTAINSTATESLEGALFOUNDATION

Executive Offices:2596 South Lewis WayLakewood, Colorado 80227

303-292-2021Fax 303-292-1980

www.mountainstateslegal.org

extinguished and Mr. Brandts property became unencumbered. The land along the railroad right-of-way was reserved from the public domain by presidential proclamation and became part of the Medicine Bow National Forest. The private land areas of Albany, Fox Park, and Mountain

Home along the right-of-way were ac-quired after creation of the railroad and are subject to it. At Albany, private lots were platted over the right-of-way and the land conveyed sub-ject to the railroad.

Abandonment of the railroad right-of-way thus creates a title conflict between these ownerships and the effects of the 1988 Rails-to-Trails Act. Mr. Brandt owns 83 acres of private land patented to him in February 1976, as part of an exchange with the Forest Service.

A Wyoming man who has fought a long-running battle with the U.S. Forest Service over its attempt to seize his private property and convert it to a public, recreational trail, asked the Supreme Court of the United States to review a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Denver that upheld the holding of a Wyoming federal district court in favor of the U.S. Forest Service. Marvin Brandt of Fox Park, Wyoming, claims title to land once used as a railroad right-of-way but that reverted to him when the railroad was aban-doned. He also claims title to a road that accesses his property. The railroad right-of-way was in use from 1904 until 1995, when it was abandoned by the railroad. As of 2000, all tracks and ties had been removed. Subsequently, the Forest Service abandoned what was once the road. In 2005, the Forest Service an-nounced plans to convert the non-exis-tent right-of-way into a high-altitude, public, recreational trail. In 2006, the United States sued Mr. Brant and oth-ers in Wyoming federal district court to quiet title to the trail in its name. MSLF, on Mr. Brandts behalf, filed a counterclaim to quiet title in favor of Mr. Brandt. In 2009, the Wyoming federal district court quieted title to the old railroad right-of-way in favor of the United States, holding that the Forest Service retained a reversionary interest in the railroad right-of-way pursuant to two federal statutes. The district court also ruled that the United States could

expand the scope of the railroad right-of-way to include a public, recreational trail. Finally, the district court ruled that the Forest Service did not abandon the road despite the presence of a gate, fence, and trees where the road once was and obliteration of the road. Mr. Brandt appealed to the Tenth Circuit where all briefing was complet-

ed and oral arguments held by mid-2010. At last, in late 2012, a three-judge panel issued a

short, per curiam decision that affirmed the dis-trict court, a decision the panel could have issued after oral argu-ments two plus years

earlier! Mr. Brandt sought a rehearing en banc; however, that petition was denied. In February 1904, pursuant to the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act, the Laramie, Hahns Peak and Pacific Railroad Company filed with the U.S. Department of the Interior and, thus, in 1908, acquired a 200-foot-wide, 66-mile-long right-of-way from Laramie, Wyoming, to the Colorado State line. The railroad oper-ated until September 1995, and, in May 1996, the Wyoming and Colorado Railroad Company, as the railroad was then known, filed a Notice of Intent to Abandon Rail Service from near Laramie, Wyoming, to the Colorado border. By 2004, the railroad company had removed all the tracks and ties. By operation of federal and state law, the right-of-way was

TheLitigator Page Two

coLoradoanS BattLe to Save taX Ban

doUBLe YoUr MSLF GiFt! teLL tHe BoSS

WeB PaGe PoLL Visitors to MSLFs web-site at www.mountainstateslegal.org responded to the following question: The U.S. Postal Service bars all guns from its property, which includes any guns locked in private cars that enter its parking lots. Is this constitutional? One hundred percent (100%) said, No: With its ruling in Heller, the Supreme Court barred any such broad limits on the Second Amend-ment. Zero percent (0%) said, Yes: In Heller, the Supreme Court included a provision the Postal Service uses to bar guns from its land. 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.

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 help-ing MSLF fight its court battles. Please ask if your employer has a matching

gift program. Contact your human re-sources 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!

PendLeYS vieW As defenders of the Second Amendment grapple with President Obamas second term onslaught against the right to keep and bear arms, a rural Colorado man is already in federal court in Denver challenging the Obama Administra-tions refusal, during Obamas first term, to adhere to the commands of the Constitution. Briefs have been filed and oral arguments await in Bonidy v. U.S. Postal Service, a gun rights case that could eventu-ally reach the Supreme Court of the United States. Tab Bonidy, who lives in rural Colorado outside of Avona tiny town in Eagle County, two hours west of Denveris licensed to carry a handgun and regularly carries a handgun for self-defense from wild animals and criminals whenever he drives the 10 miles roundtrip from his home, where mail delivery service is not available, into Avon to collect his mail. On his arrival in Avon, how-ever, he is barred by a Postal Service regulation from carrying his firearm, or even locking it in his car, on Postal Service property. In July 2010, Mr. Bonidy wrote the Postal Service and asked that it withdraw its overly broad and un-constitutional regulation. The Postal Service refused. In October 2010, Mr. Bonidy, joined by the National Asso-ciation for Gun Rights, filed a fed-eral lawsuit in Denver. Mr. Bonidy argues that the Second Amendment guarantees his right to carry a firearm for self-defense in case of confronta-tion, that his right to do so is clear from the Constitutions text, that it is illustrated by the English Com-mon Law, and that it has long been protected by the States. Twice federal attorneys moved to dismiss the suit; twice the judge denied the motion. In the long battle now beginning to preserve the Second Amendment, it is right that an initial and important skirmish occurs out West.

Colorado taxpayers defended their right to limit spending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit by urging a three-judge panel to over-turn a ruling by a Colorado federal district court. The Colorado Union of Taxpayers Foundationa nonprofit, public-interest group that edu-cates the public on the dangers of excessive taxation, regula-tion, and government spending and protects citizens right to petition gov-ernmentfaulted the district courts refusal to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Colorado legislators challenging the constitutionality of the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR). In July 2012, the district court denied a motion by the Colorado Attorney General urging that the lawsuit be dismissed. Although

the court granted part of the motion, it ruled that the parties had the right to file the lawsuit and that the rest of the case could go to trial. In November

2012, the Tenth Circuit agreed to hear an in-terim appeal. In 1992, Colorado voters adopted, by ini-tiative, TABOR, which limits the power of the General Assembly to levy new taxes or increase tax

rates without voter approval. In 2011, various state legislators and other Colorado government officials and citizens filed a federal lawsuit against Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper alleging that the limitations on the tax-ing authority of the Colorado General Assembly imposed by TABOR deprive the State of a republican form of gov-ernment.

TheLitigator

On behalf of Colorado taxpayers, MSLF asked a Pitkin County state district court to declare a tax on grocery bags, used in part to fund governmental services, unconstitutional because it was imposed without voter approval. In May 2012, the Aspen City Council, declaring itself an environmental leader that desires to take a progressive stance on environmental issues, imposed a $0.20 tax on each disposable carryout bag Aspen grocers provide to customersplastic bags are banned. Like a sales tax, the bag tax is collected by grocers from customers and remitted to Aspen. Other Colorado cities, including Basalt, Carbondale, and Telluride imposed similar taxes, despite the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABORs) bar on new taxes without voter approval. In the first year of the tax, grocers retained a portion to inform customers about the tax, train staff regarding the tax, and alter infrastructures to accom-modate collection of the tax. Revenue

from the tax funds general expenses of Aspen government, including public educational campaigns, infrastructure, pollution-reduction equipment, and community cleanup events. Aspen attempts to circumvent TABOR by calling the tax a fee. The Colorado Supreme Court, however, held that nomenclature does not control; a tax is subject to TABOR if its purpose is to raise revenue for general governmental spending. On the other hand, a fee is charged to individuals who use a service. The impact of bag taxes is significant. Research by the Beacon Hill Institute and Americans for Tax Reform found that Washington, D.C.s bag tax cost at least 100 jobs and resulted in a $5.6 million drop in aggregate disposable income. In addition, displacement of plastic bags and use of consumer-owned cloth bags has been shown by several studies to increase the spread of deadly bacteria by 50 percent and to increase the theft of merchandise from grocery stores.

A December 2012 proposal by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue an Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing regarding the lesser prairie-chicken over a vast area of the south-ern Great Plains drew MSLFs opposition in formal comments filed recently. MSLF asserts that the species is the beneficiary of numer-ous and substantial state and federal programs, initiatives, and partner-ships created solely for protecting and conserv-ing the lesser prairie-chicken and its habitat and that listing is not justified. The proposed listing would curtail dramatically the use of private and public lands over a huge re-gion from central Kansas south through Oklahoma and Texas to the Mexican border and west into Colorado and New Mexico. In proposing the listing, the

FWS asserts that the magnitude of threats facing the species has increased from moderate to high but, in fact, the listing is the result of litigation. In

late 2011, the federal agency settled lawsuits filed by environmental groups by agreeing to make listing decisions on more than 700 spe-cies, including the lesser prairie-chicken, through 2016. In 1995, the FWS received the first petition to list the lesser prairie-chicken as a threatened species. In 1997, the agency found that the listing may be warrant-ed; however, in 1998, the FWS concluded that the

listing was warranted but precluded by other higher priority listing actions. In 1999, the lesser prairie-chicken was assigned a listing priority number of eight; in 2008, that number was two.

Page Three

MSLF conteStS Prairie SPotted oWL

taXPaYerS BattLe GrocerY BaG taX MinerS teSt nePa A 118-year-old nonprofit, non-partisan mining trade association with thousands of members urged the Supreme Court of the United States to hear a case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Northwest Mining Association (NWMA) of Spokane, Washington, urged the Court to review the rulings of an Idaho federal district court and the Ninth Circuit that mining companies lack standing to challenge the federal governments violation of the Na-tional Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because only those with environmental interests may challenge an alleged NEPA violation. The NWMAs friend of the court brief is in support of a petition filed by Ameri-can Independence Mines and Minerals Company and Ivy Minerals, Inc., which own claims in the Payette National Forest in Idaho, and use roads within the forest to travel to and from their claims. In 2005, the U.S. Forest Service promulgated a new Travel Management Rule, which required each national forest to designate which roads in the forest are open to travel. The Payette National Forest proposed a travel management plan to specify the roads open for travel. To comply with NEPAwhich requires federal agen-cies to analyze major federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the hu-man environmentPayette issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to analyze the proposed plan and various alternatives to that plan. Although all NEPA studies must include a no action alternative, the Payette DEIS no action alternative did not keep open all roads that were open prior to 2005. The mining companies noted the deficiency to the For-est Service, but the agency did not correct the error in its Final EIS (FEIS), and then issued a record of decision implementing an alternative analyzed in the FEIS.

TheLitigator

ronaLd reaGan, SaGeBrUSH reBeL - HiS UntoLd HiStorY Sagebrush Rebel: Reagans Battle with Environmental Extremists and Why It Matters Today (Regnery 2013), written by William Perry Pendley, provides, for the first time, a complete review of Rea-gans record on natural resources and the environment, one that is uniquely informed by President Reagans re-cently released writings on the issues and his private diary entries; sets the record straight about Reagans coura-geous and unique approach on energy, natural resources, and the environment and his belief that people are part of the environment, a philosophy that made him anathema to environmental groups; and answers the question, as America faces several unprecedented crises, what would President Reagan do to address todays economic, natural resources, and environmental challenges.

Sagebrush Rebel is one of the most important, insightful, and inspirational books about Ronald Reagans domes-tic policies since An American Life by President Reagan himself. It is a must read for those interested in all that the President accomplished.

Edwin Meese, IIIReagans Attorney General

Sagebrush Rebel explores how President Reagans policies opened the door to the natural gas revolution oc-curring across the country, everywhere except on federal lands; were a singular technology forcing event that led to huge discoveries beneath the Outer Conti-nental Shelf, resources now closed to more exploration and development; and quelled the Sagebrush Rebellion with a good neighbor approach to States, one long abandoned by Washington, D.C. Despite scores of biographies, this aspect of the Reagan Revolution is untold.

The story of Ronald Reagans policies on natural resources and the environment has never been told, or has been distorted by his political enemies. Sagebrush Rebel corrects the record for the first time, with relevant insights for our policy debates over resource man-agement today.

Steven F. HaywardReagan biographer and author, The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution: 1980-1989

Sagebrush Rebel explores what Presi-dent Reagan did to:

Develop onshore oil and gas resources;

Explore for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) energy resources;

Ensure the use of Americas uniquely vast coal resources;

Provide for the availability of strate-gic and critical minerals;

End burdensome regulations, the growth of the bureaucracy, and wasteful government spending;

Stop a radical law from ending proj-ects, seizing land, and killing jobs;

Preserve and protect parks, refuges, and wild places for people; and

Restore Good Neighbor relations with States and all Americans.

Ronald Reagana life-long con-servationist and environmentalistbe-lieved people are part of the ecosystem. That was heresy to those who Reagan called environmental extremists, so they lie about his record. The truth is in Sagebrush Rebel.

Mark R. LevinRadio talk show host and author, Liberty and Tyranny

Reagan believed uniquely in Americas future and its young people; his policies on energy and the environ-ment ensured prosperity for decades.

Ron RobinsonYoung Americas Foundation and The Reagan Ranch

Sagebrush Rebel discusses the re-sponse of radical environmental groups and their relentless attack on President Reagan, his policies, and the leaders to whom he gave responsibility to bring change to America, as well as the reac-tion of what is todays main stream media and its unwillingness or inability to cut through the daily chaff to the heart of important public policy issues. Finally, Sagebrush Rebel explores several issues largely unfamiliar to the Ameri-can people and explains how President Reagans natural resources and environ-mental policies must be implemented anew if America hopes to return as the shining city upon the hill.

Page Four

Warriors for the West

Sagebrush rebel is Free with a $50.00 contribution to MSLF; see the coUPon on page 5. autographed copies are also available.

TheLitigator Page Five

Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF) is a nonprofit, Public-interest Legal Foundation, that is a 501(c)(3) organization,Since its 1977 Founding.

therefore, Your Generouscontributions to MSLF are tax deductible!

MSLF cannot reSt; itS roLe eSSentiaL to reMaininG Free In 2013, MSLF will have been going to court for 36 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 nearly four decades has the need for MSLF to go to court on behalf of those who could not afford legal representation been less-ened. In fact, as the federal bureaucracy has grown and as federal laws have become more far-reaching and intrusive, MSLFs caseload has increased dramati-cally. 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 36 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 isthe price that tens of thousands of Amer-icans 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!

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

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.

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.

Federal, state, and local taxes take an ever-increasing share of oneshard-earned income.Gift giving decreases taxes while advancing charitable goals.Although many mechanisms for legally lowering taxes have been

eliminated, the opportunities for reducing taxes by charitable giving remain! Income Tax A person may deduct up to 50 percent of his or her ad-justed gross income (AGI) for gifts of cash to a qualified charity; that limit is 30 percent for gifts of appreciated property. Itemized deductions made during 2013, including charitable deductions, are reduced for individuals earning $250,000 (married couples earning $300,000) or more. Please consult your tax adviser.Estate Tax A person who dies in 2013 is entitled to an exclusion of up to $5,250,000; however, estates in excess of that amount may deduct charitable gifts, by will or trust. Because 2013 federal estate taxes over $5,250,000 range from 15 percent to 40 percent, for every charitable gift of $1,000, the estate saves up to $400 in federal taxes. Please consult your tax adviser. MSLF does not provide tax advice.

Contributions of stock can be made electronically to MSLFs brokerageaccount DTC 0164. When transferring stock, indicate acct. #7080-3528, 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 prior notification. Thank you!

Problem u

Solution ureason u

the Means u

Stock utransferinformation

GIFT: $ _____________ o$1000 o$500 o$250 o$100 o$50 o$25o 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 defense of constitutional liberties and the rule of law.MSLF is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit legal foundation; contributions are tax-deductible pursuant to law.o I made my contribution for $50, or more. Please send me Sagebrush Rebel.o I have ADDED $10 to my $50 gift; send me an autographed Sagebrush Rebel.o I/We put MSLF in my/our will; (print name) .

TheLitigator

In a powerful friend of the court brief, MSLF urged the Supreme Court of the United States to hear a case involving a long-running legal battle in Nevada in which actions of the U.S. Forest Service caused the taking of a familys private property without com-pensation. The first lawsuit in the case, which involves Forest Service managed lands used by the family for cattle grazing and the fam-ilys private water rights, was filed in 1991. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled the agencys actions resulted in a taking per se as well as a regulatory taking and awarded the Estate of Wayne and Jean Hage just compensation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed by holding that the lawsuit was not timely and then refused to grant the Estates motion for a rehearing en banc.

In addition to 7,000 acres of private land owned by the Pine Creek Ranch, established in 1865 and purchased by the Hages in 1978, the Ranch includes

rights-of-way or easements on federal land to transport water for irrigation, as to which the Hages made significant expenditures to improve and maintain the rights-of-way, that is, rights under the Act of July 26, 1866.

The Hages and the Forest Service

had a long history of disputes, which began when the Forest Service put non-indigenous elk on the Hages grazing area, which interfered with cattle graz-ing and consumed Hages water. Then

A disabled veteran on fixed income who won the right to engage in placer mining on his claim in the mountains of northern California appealed the denial of his request to be reimbursed his legal fees for defeating an effort by the U.S. Forest Service to seize his claim. In 2007, Donald Eno, who owns Hound Dog placer mining claim in the Plumas National Forest Service near Quincy, 110 miles northeast of Sacramento, won a ruling from the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) upholding a 2003 ad-ministrative law judges (ALJs) ruling that Mr. Enos claim has an economic value that is more substantial than all the other uses argued by the Forest Ser-vice and that is not located on sacred, scenic, or geologically unique federal land. MSLF entered the case in 2001.

Because of his major victory, in

2007, Mr. Eno sought an award of legal fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA); however, another ALJ ruled against him holding the governments action to be sub-stantially justified. In 2010, the IBLA upheld that ruling and Mr. Eno sued in California federal district court. In December 2012, the district court ruled that Mr. Eno had received only a li-cense and denied the award. Mr. Eno appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Meanwhile, federal lawyers quickly agreed to award $380,000 to environ-mental groups for a case that lasted, in the main, three months. Mr. Eno seeks only $171,000 for nearly six years of litigation, which included substantial fact-finding, a five-day hearing, lengthy factual and legal briefings, and appeals.

WeStern rancHinG FaMiLY takinGS caSe at HiGH coUrt

FedS reWard enviroS; reBUFF Miner 9tH errS aGain!In a 7-1 ruling, the Supreme Court

of the United States once again reversed and remanded an erroneous ruling by the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Consistent with friend of the court filings by MSLF, the Court held that run-off from timberlands is not in-dustrial pollution subject to non-existent federal permits from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Page Six

keeP readinG! The Litigator, MSLFs quarterly newsletter, is the indispensable tool for staying informed regarding the latest in MSLFs precedent-setting, nationally-significant, public-interest litigation. The Litigator is mailed on the first of February, May, August, and November. Ensure that you keep receiving The Litigator by contributing $25 annually.

the agency erected fences barring cattle from meadows and water sources.

The Forest Service harassed the Hages and treated them with hostility by sending 40 letters to them in one year and by visiting them 70 times over the same period. The Forest Service

filed 22 charges against them, told them they could use only hand tools to main-tain their 1866 Act ditches, and filed felony charges against Mr. Hage when he cleared trees that significant-ly reduced water flow to his pastures. His felony convic-tion was overturned.

The Court of Federal Claims held that the For-est Service caused both a physical taking and regula-tory taken of the Hages property. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed holding the case not ripe.

At issue are whether interference with a water right is a taking per se and whether federal agencies may impose permitting requirements on a congres-sionally granted water right.

TheLitigator Page Seven

LeGaL

action

notaBLe

QUoteS

n An Arizona federal district court denied a motion by MSLF for the Northwest Mining Association arguing that the provision used by Secretary Salazar to withdraw a million acres of federal land from uranium mining in northwestern Arizona is unconstitutional.

Thank you for all you do to help us and our country.Barbara J. AnableHot Springs, AR

Thank you for your support of impor-tant constitutional rights.Phillip G. MillerMontandon, PA

Thank you for all you do. Keep up the fight.Mick BergerMountain Home, ID

Good work on the New Mexico case.Julian C. Smith, Jr.Washoe Valley, NV

Your steadfast dedication to freedom is truly appreciated.Lois A. SheffletteOxnard, CA

Keep up the good work to keep our constitutional republic alive and well.Kenny M. McCulleyHappy Camp, CA

I value the work you do. You really fight hard for the little guy against the big guys!Peggy PetersOro Valley, AZ

Well done [on the TABOR Founda-tion case.] Use of the word fees seems to be one way to dodge taxpayer votes.Marty LichGypsum, CO

God bless you in 2013. Its a shame that people are afraid of their government.Alberta KanyaFlushing, NY

Thanks for what you do!Donald G. TolmanPowell, WY

Keep up the good work.David W. McCroryBurney, CA

MSLF is a Tiger.Lois G. DunnGrand Junction, CO

Thank you for your hard work to defend our liberty.Karen YostBillings, MT

I am so proud of your Foundation.R.M. AverillAptos, CA

Thanks for your vigilance and dili-gence on the Constitution.James A. PorterAlvin, TX

Thank you for your efforts all these years! The job keeps getting bigger all the time.Jean ColtonWest Richland, WA

I believe in what you are doing.Robert R. BaneySterling, CO

Your work has just begun. Thank you for leading the charge!Margaret C. ParginTome, NM

Thank you for protecting our consti-tutional rights.Alfred SohackiMunger, MI

I hope we never forget the work you have done to preserve our freedoms.Lee SchmidtSavanna, IL

We believe in your efforts.Mr. and Mrs. James H. HannaMidland, MI

I love your newsletters.Elloine M. ClarkDallas, Texas

.nA Nebraska federal district court denied a motion by the Nebraska State Bar Association to dismiss a lawsuit by a Nebraska attorney who objects to the use of his mandatory dues to pay for lobbying.

n For the TABOR Foundation, MSLF filed a motion for summary judgment in a challenge to the constitutionality of a tax by the Colorado Bridge Enterprise, an entity created by the General Assembly to circumvent a bar on new taxes or indebtedness not approved by voters.

n An Alaska family whose mining claims were invalidated illegally by the Bureau of Land Management settled a lawsuit filed in Alaska federal district court after the United States agreed the claims are and have always been valid.

nA federal appellate court, over MSLFs objections, refused to overturn a ruling by a federal district court upholding the listing of the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act due to climate change.

Non Profit Organization

U.S. Postage

PAID

Denver, CO

Permit No. 847

MOUNTAINSTATESLEGALFOUNDATION

2596 South Lewis WayLakewood, Colorado 80227ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

PreSident and cHieF oPeratinG oFFicerWilliam Perry Pendley

vice PreSident and cHieF LeGaL oFFicerSteven J. Lechner

vice PreSidentadMiniStrationJanice K. Alvarado

eXecUtive coMMittee

John R. Gibson, NV: ChairmanJohn J. Blomstrom, WY: Vice ChairmanFrank S. Priestley, ID; SecretaryPeter K. Ellison, UT; TreasurerStephen M. Brophy, AZDavid Allen New, IDL. Jerald Sheffels, WADon Sparks, TX

GUn oWnerS SeaL BiG Win at coLorado SUPreMe coUrt A national group and three of its Colorado members recently celebrated the issuance of an order finalizing their unanimous victory at the Colorado Supreme Court. In March 2012, Colorados highest court upheld the ruling of the Colo-rado 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 cam-pus. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus and three Coloradoans, repre-sented by MSLF, prevailed at the Court of Appeals in 2010, when a three-judge panel reversed an El Paso County state district courts 2009 decision, and ruled that the CCA bars local rules, such as those adopted by CU, which conflict with the Act, and that CUs ban on firearms in private vehicles for self-defense is unconstitutional. In the summer of 2010, the Regents voted 5-4 to appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court; their petition was granted in the fall of 2010. The case was argued at the Colorado Supreme Court in the early summer of 2011. Colorados CCA, C.R.S. 18-12-201, requires concealed handgun permit applicants to undergo an extensive back-ground check to ensure they have no history of substance abuse

or criminal activity, are not subject to a protection order, and have demonstrated competency with a handgun. Applicants must be over 21 years of age and must carry firearms com-pletely out of sight. If the local Sheriff concludes that a permit

holder is dangerous, the Sheriff may deny or cancel a permit; fewer than 1 percent of per-mits issued in Colorado have been revoked. 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.

SCCCs lawsuit charged that CU Regents are prohibited by the CCA from adopt-ing conflicting regulations. In addition, the lawsuit alleged that CUs ban is so broad it violates the Colorado Constitution, which

protects the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The then student plaintiffs, adults who are trained and licensed to carry a handgun nearly everywhere in Colorado, argued that the CCA gives them the right to carry a handgun on cam-pus. Given the Virginia Tech tragedy, as well as shootings at Northern Illinois University and New Life Church in Colorado Springs, campuses are exactly where students who qualify under Colorados CCA believe they need to be able to carry firearms for self-defense.