• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Couple files suit in gun-range dispute~ Guns noisy

Really? Complaining of gunfire? In the Waterford area?

North Waterford is one of my favorite places in the world. I have a lot of very fond memories of that place and the people there when I was growing up. But I don't ever remember it being a place where people whined about things like this. Are these people going to sue someone over the snowmobile noise, too? Unless things have changed over the last 20 years, snowmobiling was HUGE in that area.
 
Chuck Would said:
Hmmm, anyone here old enough to remember the Norwood Arena? Stock car track and then added a drag strip?

They were there 1st too.
Click to expand...
Being first means nothing.

There used to be a racetrack on Long Island called Bridgehampton. People started buying up space around the track and built McMansions then complained about the noise and had it shut down. There is a private, luxury golf club in it's place now. [angry]
 
Don't Laugh about this and Don't assume the gun-club will win in court.

Come out in support of the Club.
Write letters of support to the town, your representative and senator
Prepare a "Friend of the Court" brief to file with the court

Private Home Owners have had a nasty habit of ultimately winning this fights.

I know of a local range that was once used by several local police departments that ended up closing due to noise complaints from a newly built housing complex. The Court didn't "technically" close them, but required them to submit an approved noise abatment plan within 120 days and the club couln't afoid the high-way style noise breaks that the court was requiring.
 
According to the article, these folks don't live right next door to the range, their home is 1.4 miles away.

They have some balls filing this lawsuit.
 
Ya and Im gonna buy a house next to the airport, and complain that the planes are too loud............

The club was there, they moved into the house and now they dont like it? Tough sh*t. Do your research before you buy.
 
AppleSeeds said:
They're going to win one way or another. A win could come in the form of stupid "reasonable" restrictions. Sound familiar?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even assume that they will "WIN" with reasonable restictions. The judge could find for the plaintiffs, award them cash and never even address the subject of reasonable restrictions, making any gunfire at the club potential grounds for a new lawsuit from another homeowner.
 
Mr Weebles said:
According to the article, these folks don't live right next door to the range, their home is 1.4 miles away.

They have some balls filing this lawsuit.
Click to expand...

My grandmother lives 4 miles from there. Hell, I learned to shoot in the sandpit just behind Five Kezar's Road, where 118 and 35 come together - a LOT of people used to shoot there - and I don't remember there ever being any complaints.
 
ShadeWPI said:
I wouldn't even assume that they will "WIN" with reasonable restictions. The judge could find for the plaintiffs, award them cash and never even address the subject of reasonable restrictions, making any gunfire at the club potential grounds for a new lawsuit from another homeowner.
Click to expand...
Would that not a be a win as well? Even if they are awarded but $1, the door will then be open.
 
FROM THE ARTICLE

Brook said four law-enforcement agencies use the range, sometimes in the morning or evening. He said the club tries to limit use of the range from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and that there have not been any complaints from the immediate neighbors. The range is also closed if events are taking place at the nearby Waterford Inn or Pulpit Rock Cemetery.

Brook said the club was unaware of the Howes' concerns until late last summer. He said their home is 1.4 miles from the range, and he could not hear shots when he went there as weapons were being used at the range.
Click to expand...

BRAIN NOT ENGAGED
 
Wow, The Massachusetts law regarding this actually looks pretty good:

CHAPTER 214. EQUITY JURISDICTION

Chapter 214: Section 7B. Noise pollution; shooting ranges; exemption from liability; hours of operation

Section 7B. Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or special law, rule or regulation to the contrary, no owner of a rifle, pistol, silhouette, skeet, trap, blackpowder, or other similar range shall be liable in any civil action or criminal prosecution in any matter relating to noise or noise pollution resulting from use of the range, provided said owner of the range was in compliance with any applicable noise control law, ordinance or by-laws in existence at the time of the construction of such range.

No owner shall be liable in any action for nuisance, and no court shall enjoin the use or operation of said range on the basis of noise or noise pollution, provided said owner was in compliance with any noise control law, ordinance or by-laws in existence at the time of the construction of the range.

The exemptions from liability and the immunities from prosecution provided in this section shall also extend to any owner who, in order to satisfy a requirement of law, regulation or by-law, relocates his range within the same parcel of land or a contiguous parcel of land, owned by him at the time that the commonwealth or its political subdivision commences enforcement of such a requirement or that the owner voluntarily complies with such a requirement. In order to maintain these exemptions from liability and immunities from prosecution, owners who relocate their ranges pursuant to the preceding sentence shall remain in compliance with the applicable noise control laws, ordinances or by-laws in existence at the time of the construction of the original range described in the first paragraph.

No standards in rules adopted by any state, city, or town agency for limiting levels of noise in terms of decibel level which may occur in the outdoor atmosphere shall apply to the ranges exempted from liability under the provisions of this section. Such ranges shall be prohibited from operating between the hours of ten o’clock post meridian and eight o’clock ante meridian unless otherwise allowed by the local governing body.
Click to expand...

Here's what I could find regarding Maine:

MAINE – ME. REV. STAT. ANN. TIT. 17 SECTION 2806
Title 17 - §2806. Sport shooting ranges.
1. Acquisition of property near existing range. Except as provided in this subsection, a person may not maintain a nuisance action for noise against a shooting range located in the vicinity of that person's property if the shooting range was established as of the date the person acquired the property. If there is a substantial change in use of the range after the person acquires the property, the person may maintain a nuisance action if the action is brought within 3 years from the beginning of the substantial change. [1995, c. 231, §1 (new).]
2. Establishment of shooting range near existing property. A person who owns property in the vicinity of a shooting range that was established after the person acquired the property may maintain a nuisance action for noise against that shooting range only if the action is brought within 5 years after establishment of the range or 3 years after a substantial change in use of the range. [1995, c. 231, §1 (new).]
3. Dormant shooting range. If there has been no shooting activity at a range for a period of 3 years, resumption of shooting is considered establishment of a new shooting range for purposes of this section. [1995, c. 231, §1 (new).]
4. Application. This section does not limit nuisance actions against shooting ranges established after the effective date of this section. [1995, c. 231, §1 (new).]
MAINE - ME. REV. STAT. ANN. TIT. 30-A SECTION 3011
Title 30-A §3011. Regulation of sport shooting ranges.
1. Definition. As used in this section, "sport shooting range" means an area designed and used for archery, skeet and trap shooting or other similar shooting sports and the shooting of rifles, shotguns and pistols. [1995, c. 231, §2 (new).]
2. Limitation. A municipal noise control ordinance may not require or be applied so as to require a sport shooting range to limit or eliminate shooting activities that have occurred on a regular basis at the range prior to the enactment date of the ordinance. [1995, c. 231, §2 (new).]
3. Expansion of activity. Nothing in this section limits the ability of a municipality to regulate noise produced by the expansion of activity at a sport shooting range. [1995, c. 231, §2 (new).]
Click to expand...

If I'm reading the Maine statute correctly, it doesn't look like the couple have much of a legal leg to stand on. Maybe the club could donate some some ear muffs to the unhappy couple. It would block out the noise from the range and probably improve their love life since they won't be able to hear each other whine. [wink]
 
They are a mile and a half away! How loud can it really be? It was there long before they were, they need to shut up and deal. If they don't like it they can move along. Petty BS that is a waste of everybody's time and nothing more.
 
I found this line to be interesting:

Brook said a skeet-shooting range was put in, but it replaced a trap-shooting site and uses smaller guns than the 12-gauge shotguns used in trap shooting.
Click to expand...

So does this mean they're only using 16, 20, 28 and .410 gauge shotguns on the new skeet range?
Sounds kind of silly to me, at least 80% of the skeet shooters I know use 12's, including myself.
 
Wrong area for moonbats. Again, things may have changed up that way, but that area was never known to me to be populated by the whiney type. Rather, the awake and working well before the sun was up, would give their neighbor the shirt off their back, welcome any man at their dinner table, very epitome of the New England spirit type.

I really need to get up there to visit again soon. I'd like to shoot while I'm there, too, just to see if anyone complains. Only likely complaint is that I'm wasting ammo shooting at things you can't eat afterwards.
 
Waterford is a beautiful little town. My guess is these two filing the suit are not originally from the area.
 
Howe, a retired engineer, and his wife, Debbie, an artist and potter, moved to the western Maine town of Waterford in the early 1980
Click to expand...

Mr. fancy job from away can get back on his solar powered tractor and go home.

B
 
center442 said:
Wow, The Massachusetts law regarding this actually looks pretty good:

Here's what I could find regarding Maine:

If I'm reading the Maine statute correctly, it doesn't look like the couple have much of a legal leg to stand on. Maybe the club could donate some some ear muffs to the unhappy couple. It would block out the noise from the range and probably improve their love life since they won't be able to hear each other whine. [wink]
Click to expand...

that could all come down to what the definition of "substantial change" is.

Since it's not defined in the statute, it could mean anything they claim... such as their claim of the
increased noise "due to more use of the range in the early morning and late evening as well as expanded use of shotguns and automatic weapons".

All it would take is a sympathetic judge to find in their favor.
 
MConnelly2 said:
Wrong area for moonbats.
Click to expand...

"Moonbats" can pop up anywhere. It's not a type of people or beliefs, it's a virus (like Herpes, Chicken Pox, etc.) that effects the way people act. It can be spread quite easily simply by the migration of those who have been infected (usually from HOT ZONES such as Cambridge). There is no known cure once it sets in. However, it has been known to be sent into remission and even reversed when detected early. [thinking]
 
George D said:
[laugh] You would figure after 30 years he'd be used to it.
Click to expand...

THIS!

Back when I was in my teens, I knew a girl that lived right next to the railroad tracks that were part of a commuter rail station. All throughout the day the trains would come and go. At times the engine would sit idling right outside of her kitchen window (couldn't have been more than 15-20 feet away). I asked her how she could possibly deal with it. She just shrugged her shoulders and said "You just get used to it, I don't even notice it".
 
MConnelly2 said:
I think that would be a safe guess.

Maybe they're just pissed that Tut's is gone?

(Same folks now, same place, same insurmountable breakfast, but I think they call it Melby's or something now. Not at all the same as Tut's to me...)
Click to expand...
Tut's, the place that always gave change in $2 bills?
 

Similar threads

Chipotle shooting leaves employee injured after guacamole dispute turns violent
2
Replies
48
Views
625
Garys
Garys
Cleaning your guns
2 3
Replies
66
Views
1K
Buck F
Buck F
Fact Check: Brady Campaign Falsely Claims Guns ‘Are Rarely Used Successfully in Self-Defense’
Replies
0
Views
37
Reptile
Reptile
Incels with guns
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
chris_1001
chris_1001
Pennsylvania Court Upholds Right of Young People to Carry Guns in Public
Replies
6
Views
204
Coyote33
Coyote33
Back
Top Bottom