Gun Range Immunity: An Argument against Legalized Nuisance and Non-Governmental Takings

People exhausted by the increasingly fast-paced life and loud noises of the big city will often seek refuge in the solitude of quiet country living. Perhaps naive, the romantic thought of waking to the scenic views of an early morning sunrise burning an orange hue across the pasture or the sweet sounds of a Bachman\u27s sparrow singing from the birdhouse placed neatly within view of the kitchen window is abruptly squashed when rural landowners fall victim to the excessively loud sport of outdoor firearm shooting. Protecting rural landowners\u27 rights to the quiet use and enjoyment of their property has been a bedrock of American jurisprudence for more than two hundred years. State legislatures, however, saw fit to erode this once revered protection by seemingly favoring the advancement of corporate enterprise and urban growth through the passage of immunity laws that provide gun range owners with legal protection against noise abatement claims, thereby leaving landowners desperate for relief from the unwavering sounds of war that such gun ranges produce. Viewed positively, immunity statutes make excessive noise from a gun range a legalized nuisance. Viewed critically, immunity statutes result in the state sponsoring of non-governmental actors freely wielding unconstitutional private takings against rural landowners. This Article discusses issues faced by rural landowners, described herein as disregarded victims, who were living in their homes or operating a business prior to a gun range establishing a nearby operation. This Article specifically argues for legislative reform to curtail the immunity so generously afforded to gun range operators and to provide a justiciable pathway for existing rural landowners to seek noise abatement relief through private claims

Gun Range Immunity: An Argument against Legalized Nuisance and Non-Governmental Takings

People exhausted by the increasingly fast-paced life and loud noises of the big city will often seek refuge in the solitude of quiet country living. Perhaps naive, the romantic thought of waking to the scenic views of an early morning sunrise burning an orange hue across the pasture or the sweet sounds of a Bachman\u27s sparrow singing from the birdhouse placed neatly within view of the kitchen window is abruptly squashed when rural landowners fall victim to the excessively loud sport of outdoor firearm shooting. Protecting rural landowners\u27 rights to the quiet use and enjoyment of their property has been a bedrock of American jurisprudence for more than two hundred years. State legislatures, however, saw fit to erode this once revered protection by seemingly favoring the advancement of corporate enterprise and urban growth through the passage of immunity laws that provide gun range owners with legal protection against noise abatement claims, thereby leaving landowners desperate for relief from the unwavering sounds of war that such gun ranges produce. Viewed positively, immunity statutes make excessive noise from a gun range a legalized nuisance. Viewed critically, immunity statutes result in the state sponsoring of non-governmental actors freely wielding unconstitutional private takings against rural landowners. This Article discusses issues faced by rural landowners, described herein as disregarded victims, who were living in their homes or operating a business prior to a gun range establishing a nearby operation. This Article specifically argues for legislative reform to curtail the immunity so generously afforded to gun range operators and to provide a justiciable pathway for existing rural landowners to seek noise abatement relief through private claims

United States’ Policy Towards Haitian Refugees

The United States experienced an increase in Haitian refugees attempting to enter the country during the 1990s, after Haiti entered a period of instability when their democratically elected president was ousted by a military coup. Despite this, the United States continued to consider Hatian’s seeking asylum in the United States to be “economic refugees,” granting them basis to turn away Haitians easily. Often, the United States turned away Haitian refugees intercepted at sea without an asylum hearing. Rather than being based in immigration law, the United States’s response towards Haitian refugees was rooted in racism and was directly contradictory to asylum policies. Examining the United States differing treatments of Cuban and Haitian immigrants during the 1990s reveals the United States’ contradictory policies. Discrimination is evident when comparing United States policy specifically targeting Haitians to the rest of U.S. immigration and refugee laws. Although an appeals court initially found the policy of turning away asylum seekers at sea to be illegal, the practice continued throughout the Bush and Clinton administrations after the Supreme Court ruling Sale vs Haitian Centers Council, Inc. allowed it to continue. Although the government claimed any Haitians returned would not be under threat in Haiti, reports found that many were the victims of police intimidation and interrogation. The United States’ practice should have been ended and each asylum seeker attempting to enter the United States should have received an asylum hearing, whether they made it to land or not.https://orb.binghamton.edu/research_days_posters_2021/1054/thumbnail.jp

UK Alcohol Treatment trial: client-treatment matching effects

Aim To test a priori hypotheses concerning client–treatment matching in the treatment of alcohol problems and to evaluate the more general hypothesis that client–treatment matching adds to the overall effectiveness of treatment. Design Pragmatic, multi-centre, randomized controlled trial (the UK Alcohol Treatment Trial: UKATT) with open follow-up at 3 months after entry and blind follow-up at 12 months. Setting Five treatment centres, comprising seven treatment sites, including National Health Service (NHS), social services and joint NHS/non-statutory facilities. Treatments Motivational enhancement therapy and social behaviour and network therapy. Measurements Matching hypotheses were tested by examining interactions between client attributes and treatment types at both 3 and 12 months follow-up using the outcome variables of percentage days abstinent, drinks per drinking day and scores on the Alcohol Problems Questionnaire and Leeds Dependence Questionnaire. Findings None of five matching hypotheses was confirmed at either follow-up point on any outcome variable. Conclusion The findings strongly support the conclusion reached in Project MATCH in the United States that client–treatment matching, at least of the kind examined, is unlikely to result in substantial improvements to the effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems. Possible reasons for this failure to support the general matching hypothesis are discussed, as are the implications of UKATT findings for the provision of treatment for alcohol problems in the United Kingdom