Couple files suit in gun-range dispute~ Guns noisy

[Jose]

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.

Well lookee here, someone finally dug up relevant legal statutes after two pages of inane comments about being there first yada yada yada.....

 

[JRyan]

Well lookee here, someone finally dug up relevant legal statutes after two pages of inane comments about being there first yada yada yada.....

It was two pages of people being annoyed that we have to even read about jerks like that. We should file a lawsuit against the couple as a group, emotional distress or whatever they hell it was they were claiming, for causing us stress and consternation on a message board by acting like complete tool bags in a way that threatened our worldview. and one more just in case:

edit: it is good to see the law is on the side of good sense for once though.

 

[EddieCoyle]

negligent infliction of emotional distress and loss of consortium..
Loss of consortium? Are they too upset to have sex or is it they just are trying to wring more money out of the club? Inquiring minds want to know.

I bet they're both really gross looking and trying to blame their lack of sex on the club.

 

[GaryO]

I bet they own cats!

 

[sig2009]

If only that was the way the real world worked. News flash, It's not.

A news flash for you. Try closing down an airport around a residential area because of noise. That is the way the real world works! Wake up!

 

[Stef]

A news flash for you. Try closing down an airport around a residential area because of noise. That is the way the real world works! Wake up!

What do airports have to do with this? First, comparing an airport to a shooting range is absurd. Second, I already posted one example where being there first made no difference, so as much as we might like it to be so it's hardly "case closed" as you so eloquently posted. Try not to get too butt-hurt when someone points out simple facts.

 

[sig2009]

What do airports have to do with this? First, comparing an airport to a shooting range is absurd. Second, I already posted one example where being there first made no difference, so as much as we might like it to be so it's hardly "case closed" as you so eloquently posted. Try not to get too butt-hurt when someone points out simple facts.

Hello!!!!! Noise is noise!!!! Here is a good example of what I know and you don't seem to. I live near Englishtown Raceway Park. The residents have tried to close the drag strip for years because of the noise. They can't do it as hard as they tried. The reason. Because the drag strip was there first. No one told the people to move close to the drag strip. So you see it was there first and it has withstood people trying to close it. The shooting range is no different. So before you comment on something you have no clue about step aside. Worse case the range will have to limit the shooting hours but it will not be closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!! These are the simple facts unless you live in a communist state where the dictator does what he wants.

 

[cekim]

These are the simple facts unless you live in a communist state where the dictator does what he wants.

Um, but we do?

 

[Stef]

Hello!!!!! Noise is noise!!!! Here is a good example of what I know and you don't seem to. I live near Englishtown Raceway Park. The residents have tried to close the drag strip for years because of the noise. They can't do it as hard as they tried. The reason. Because the drag strip was there first. No one told the people to move close to the drag strip. So you see it was there first and it has withstood people trying to close it. The shooting range is no different. So before you comment on something you have no clue about step aside. Worse case the range will have to limit the shooting hours but it will not be closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!! These are the simple facts unless you live in a communist state where the dictator does what he wants.

Good lord, how old are you? You can add all the exclamation points and childish insults you like, but neither will change the facts or the reality of the situation. The very thing you so vehemently proclaim couldn't possibly happen already has, at least once, as I previously posted. Being there first doesn't necessarily guarantee anything.

 

[T(1)of(3)]

Funny, if he was 45 in 1980, he would be 75 years old now. First I wonder why it took 30 years of living 1.4 miles from the range to file a lawsuit. Second, your hearing would be worse 30 years later so the noise should be getting less from the range. Third, I wonder how shooting between 0900 and 1700 would effect his sex life...try having sex at say 1800...or later...or get up and do it before 0900...come on man, show a little initiative. (and at 75...the darker the better...daylight hours might lead to loss of consortium)

 

[m4bushy]

Waterford is a beautiful little town. My guess is these two filing the suit are not originally from the area.

I'll bet you a beer that they moved here from Mass. I don't miss dealing with those retired transplants from the south.

 

[mikem317]

"...loss of consortium...?"

I thought Viagra was the cure for not being able to get it up.

What good could a lawsuit be?

I think it's a legal term. Not a medical condition.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I think it's a legal term. Not a medical condition.

It's legalese for "I ain't getting any sex, it's someone else's fault, and they're gonna pay". When one half of a couple is damaged, this allows the spouse to hook up to the gravy train and demand their own settlement. In this case each party gets to claim two damages - the alleged annoyance of the noise, and the loss of sex since they apparently can only make their own noise when it's quiet.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

I'm filling a lawsuit now because there is a radio tower near my house!!! Yes, it's been there for 60 years, but damn it, I hate looking at it!!!

 

[Skald]

Its all about the money in this one. I'm willing to bet their savings didn't make it as far as they planned and are looking for someone else to fund it.

 

[buckhunter]

Hi Folks,

These lawsuits are not to be taken lightly! My club, Southboro Rod and Gun, had our rifle/pistol range shutdown for over 1 year due to a suit by the adjacent private country club! After alot of litigation in court and many dollars and manhours designing a new range we opened again. There basis for the suit was a house was hit over the top of the course by a stray round. After much investigation there were alot of doubts on this happening! The homeowner had no issue with us it was the country club wanting to shut us down! In the end the judge threw the case out and we now have a state of the art range but at a cost to the club and no one else! But its okay for these country clubs to spread highly toxic pesticides and weed killers to keep their pristine fairways. But have a gun club nearby and lookout!! Just keep in mind what their real purpose is to shut us down permanently!

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I'm filling a lawsuit now because there is a radio tower near my house!!! Yes, it's been there for 60 years, but damn it, I hate looking at it!!!

The difference is there is ZERO chance the radio company would fold because your legal team has more funding than theirs.

These lawsuits are not to be taken lightly!

The club in Dudley, MA used the range protection noise law, as there was no allegation of a round leaving range. They were sued, and the plaintiff ever hired an investigator to join the club as a member to gather intelligence (disclosed when the plaintiff was asked about this under oath at deposition). The decision was the court ordering the club shut down, with the judge claiming the club failed to prove it was in continuous operation each year since it had opened and thus was not covered by the range protection law. My understanding is that they were a club with "just land" for years, and the judge decided there was no proof the club had operated as a club for each year. Although there were grounds for an appeal, the club could not afford one and remains closed.

The homeowner had no issue with us it was the country club wanting to shut us down!

If that happens, get JPL development in from Texas to put up a Chapter 40B development.

 

[ShadeWPI]

Summery:

Just because the club was "there first" isn't a defense, especially in Maine, where the laws aren't as generous as in MA. We, as a community, need to fight hard against this kind of abuse of the Judicial System and support shooting clubs and ranges from this kind of attack.

It would be great if "We were here first" was a legal defense, but as you can see, even in cases where that is the law of the land, it still needs to be supported and vigorously defended.

 

[MaineCWPtraining]

Same tradition~ Melby's

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Summery:

Just because the club was "there first" isn't a defense, especially in Maine, where the laws aren't as generous as in MA. We, as a community, need to fight hard against this kind of abuse of the Judicial System and support shooting clubs and ranges from this kind of attack.

It would be great if "We were here first" was a legal defense, but as you can see, even in cases where that is the law of the land, it still needs to be supported and vigorously defended.

How is that not a defense. It is the stupid homeowner's fault for not researching the area before buying a house. Does that mean if I move into a neighborhood with a bad school district I can sue because I didn't check before I bought???

 

[ShadeWPI]

How is that not a defense. It is the stupid homeowner's fault for not researching the area before buying a house. Does that mean if I move into a neighborhood with a bad school district I can sue because I didn't check before I bought???

Second,

While I don't know of any court cases about that specific issue, I haven't searched either. History with the Gun Club issue specifically has shown that the courts don't always agree with that defense, so we CAN'T assume it's a valid defense, as much as we believe it should be or would like it to be a case closed defense. Actual court decisions haven't proven it to be so.

 

[jcr]

club in Dudley, MA ... decision was the court ordering the club shut down, with the judge claiming the club failed to prove it was in continuous operation each year since it had opened

Shows what a layman I am.

I would have thought the burden of proof would have had to be the other way around.

 

[terraformer]

Shows what a layman I am.

I would have thought the burden of proof would have had to be the other way around.

What's worse, a club is forced to shut down and now this in continuous operation thing comes into play for subsequent cases...

 

[Rob Boudrie]

History with the Gun Club issue specifically has shown that the courts don't always agree with that defense,

The courts won't say they disagree with the defense. If a judge wants to shut down the club (s)he will use another justification - continuous operation; safety; etc. and not rule that the club is to be shut down because of noise.

 

[ShadeWPI]

Shows what a layman I am.

I would have thought the burden of proof would have had to be the other way around.

It's civil court, the burden of proof is different, it's by Perpondurance of the Evidence.

Plaintiff has to show evidence of damages and cause.
Defendant has to show evidence of lack of liability.

Case is decided based on the 51% threshold. Once the Plaintiff has shown they have been damaged and that the defendent is the cause, the Defendant has the burden to prove they are not liable for the damages. To use said law as a defense they need to provide evidence that they have been in continuous operation since prior to the complaint.

Here's another way that such laws have been thwarted:

Couple files noise complaint - is told "It's a no go, there are laws protecting them from noise complaints if they have been in continuous operation"
Couple contacts EPA and reports them for enviornmental contamination
EPA files for Court Ordered enviornmental Impact Review.
Court Orders Enviornmental Impact review of Firing Range
EPA files for Injunction on continued operations pending Enviornmental Impact review
EPA determines a 2 year study is necessary to evaluate "leeching"
2 years later EPA determines that there is no significant enviornmental impact and Injuction is lifted.
Couple refiles lawsuit for noise complaint, claining club is no longer protected under the law as they were not in continuous operation (shut down for 2 years for review)

It looks like in this case, the couple has filed the complaint immediately following renovations to the club area in the hopes that they can claim "Significant Changes" and thus bypass Maine's noise compliant protection laws.

I will repeat my statement: We MUST come out in support of the clubs and ranges when they are attacked in this manner and not merely dismiss the cases as baseless because the Range was there first or even because there are laws in place to specifically prevent this kind of abuse of the civil legal system. As a community we need to aggressively support clubs and ranges against this kind of attack.

 

[rwl1955]

Hmmm, anyone here old enough to remember the Norwood Arena? Stock car track and then added a drag strip?

They were there 1st too.

Yup. I can remember listening to the engine noise when I was falling asleep as a kid.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

It's civil court, the burden of proof is different, it's by Perpondurance of the Evidence.

Plaintiff has to show evidence of damages and cause.
Defendant has to show evidence of lack of liability.

Case is decided based on the 51% threshold. Once the Plaintiff has shown they have been damaged and that the defendent is the cause, the Defendant has the burden to prove they are not liable for the damages. To use said law as a defense they need to provide evidence that they have been in continuous operation since prior to the complaint.

Here's another way that such laws have been thwarted:

Couple files noise complaint - is told "It's a no go, there are laws protecting them from noise complaints if they have been in continuous operation"
Couple contacts EPA and reports them for enviornmental contamination
EPA files for Court Ordered enviornmental Impact Review.
Court Orders Enviornmental Impact review of Firing Range
EPA files for Injunction on continued operations pending Enviornmental Impact review
EPA determines a 2 year study is necessary to evaluate "leeching"
2 years later EPA determines that there is no significant enviornmental impact and Injuction is lifted.
Couple refiles lawsuit for noise complaint, claining club is no longer protected under the law as they were not in continuous operation (shut down for 2 years for review)

It looks like in this case, the couple has filed the complaint immediately following renovations to the club area in the hopes that they can claim "Significant Changes" and thus bypass Maine's noise compliant protection laws.

I will repeat my statement: We MUST come out in support of the clubs and ranges when they are attacked in this manner and not merely dismiss the cases as baseless because the Range was there first or even because there are laws in place to specifically prevent this kind of abuse of the civil legal system. As a community we need to aggressively support clubs and ranges against this kind of attack.

In a case like this, how can we lend a hand? Just for the record, I think this is complete and utter BULLSH*T! Just because it's a gun club these libs get away with murder.

 

[ShadeWPI]

In a case like this, how can we lend a hand? Just for the record, I think this is complete and utter BULLSH*T! Just because it's a gun club these libs get away with murder.

There are several things an individual can do.

1) Contribute to a defense fund when such an action starts.
2) Contact your government representative and express your oppinion and call on them to contact the court in support of the law and the gun club.
3) Write a "Friend of the Court Brief" and submit to the court that is hearing the case
4) Contact a local news media outlet and try to get them to run a story on it.
5) Contact the club involves and ask them "What can I do to help?"


I agree with you that it's complete and utter BS, but the truth is it happens and we need to be vigilant and active supporters of our sport. Unfortunately cases like this are often dismissed as "Case Closed" by the community (and even the club itself) so a proper defense isn't prepared and in court, if you don't have a lawyer and your opponent does, often, you'll loose even if the law is on your side.

 

[jcr]

To use said law as a defense they need to provide evidence that they have been in continuous operation since prior to the complaint.

We've seen examples of how this can be malicously exploited, but it is the simpler case that this affords no protection.

Say the 80 year club was very informal in the '60s. Say there were only half a dozen, elderly members who shot on the property a couple times a year. No competitions, no newsletters, etc.

How would they know that 50 years later they'd have to proove retroactively that they used the space?

Nobody told them that they need to get notaraized affadavits.

And those members have since passed away.

Though it doesn't fit the definition of "ex post facto", it would seem that the only fair adjudication would be to only require proof of continuous operation back tot he enactment of the exemption from the the sound-law.

 

[ShadeWPI]

jrc,

You don't need to demonstrate that you've been in continuous operation since your founding or even since the establishment of the Gun-Ranges noise compliant protection law. You need to provide clear evidence that you have been in continuous operation since prior to the noise compliant or noise law. The problem is, some ranges have kept poor records or they believe "We were here first" is a valid defense, so don't do the research and come to the court with the evidence they need to prove they were in continuous operation.

If you're standing in a court room and you state "We were founded in 1924, the range was built in 1929 and in continuous operation since" And the judge says, "What evidence do you have that the range has been in continuous operation since 1997 when the plaintiffs moved into the neighborhood?"

If you don't have records showing that the range has been used every year since 1997 with you in court, you might have just blown your defense.

It's worse in the Maine law, since "significant modifications" nullify the protection law. Now you need to demonstrate it's been in use AND hasn't been significantly modified.