203435 research outputs found
Sort by
The Addiction Restriction: Addiction and the Right to Bear Arms
Get PDFThis Article is the culmination of a yearlong research project, and it is the first to address addiction and drug use in the area of Second Amendment law. I argue that addicts may be disarmed, if they are dangerous. My dangerousness test centers on illicit use and imminent danger. That is, do the facts and circumstances prove that an individual is in fact a danger? To put it another way, disarmament is appropriate when there exists demonstrable evidence that a person poses a significant and imminent risk of causing public injury. This Article develops and expands upon some themes and arguments that were first sketched out in my articles, Armed and Under the Influence: The Second Amendment and the Intoxicant Rule After Bruen (2024) and Defining Dangerousness: When Disarmament is Appropriate (2024). There is growing confusion within the lower courts regarding when an individual, particularly those who have a history of drug use or addiction, may have their Second Amendment rights restricted. This Article intends to clarify the appropriate standard. The goal of this Article is to aid in determining when an individual should be permanently disarmed. Part II surveys the history of addiction. This section examines the commonness of addiction around the time of the founding to the early twentieth century. Furthermore, Part III reviews the relevant legislative action relating to firearm possession, use, control, and addiction. The essential claim of Part III contends that modern laws restricting the possession of a firearm due to addiction are unconstitutional. Following an examination of the relevant history and legislation, Part IV considers the arguments in favor of prohibiting addicts from possessing firearms. Part V focuses on the modern and developing controversies surrounding criminalizing the possession of firearms because of an individual’s history of addiction. Part VI, then, examines when an addict may be disarmed
Maximizing Productivity Through Digital Panopticism: Combatting Invasive Employee Surveillance Systems in the Workplace
Get PDFThe United States has experienced rapid advancements in surveillance technology and data collection in the past three decades. Conversely, since the COVID-19 pandemic, remote work opportunities have increased, with many remote workers being subjected to surveillance within their homes. Given the lack of significant statutory measures to safeguard remote employees against incessant surveillance, employers can monitor employees, collect data, and enforce unattainable productivity quotas with little repercussions. Despite these harms, the influx of remote jobs presents significant benefits, especially for states like West Virginia, which faces immense population decline and lacks consistent physical job opportunities. Remote work promotes flexibility and permits employees to move to regions with lower costs of living. In turn, struggling communities experience a revitalization in their population and an overall diversification of their local economy. As a result, in West Virginia, it’s essential to strike a balance between protecting workers from overreaching digital surveillance and making the state an attractive destination for remote talent. Addressing this issue requires examining the surge in productivity surveillance technology and the legal system’s inability to adapt with these changes. Current privacy laws exempt protections within the employer-employee relationship, and traditional privacy jurisprudence often prioritizes the business interests of employers over employees’ privacy rights. While there are potential labor and employment protections that could mitigate the effects of surveillance, they are largely tailored to traditional work settings. Therefore, until Congress enacts legislation that explicitly regulates employee monitoring and data collection, states must intervene to protect their remote workforce and ensure employer compliance
Beetlejuice Beetlejuice
No full texthttps://researchrepository.wvu.edu/structuralist_db/3958/thumbnail.jp
Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga
No full texthttps://researchrepository.wvu.edu/structuralist_db/3960/thumbnail.jp
Someone Please Do Something: The Fight for Web Accessibility Rages On
Get PDFWhen the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) was enacted in 1990, no one could have envisioned the way technology would dominate society as it does today. Title III, Public Accommodations, of the ADA was enacted to allow disabled individuals the opportunity to fully enjoy equal access to goods and services offered to the public. Title III has traditionally been applied to physical, stand-alone locations such as hotels, shopping centers, and restaurants. However, almost every facet of an American’s life today involves a screen emitting a bright light. Additionally, businesses of all sizes are facing mountains of web accessibility litigation due to the absence of strict accessibility compliance standards. Thus, a question of utmost importance emerges: Does Title III of the ADA extend to websites and mobile applications as places of “public accommodation?”
The circuits are currently split over this question, with each answering it using one of three approaches: (1) A website/mobile application is a place of public accommodation regardless of a physical location; (2) A website/mobile application is not a place of public accommodation with or without a physical location; or (3) A website/mobile application is a place of public accommodation if the plaintiff alleges a sufficient “nexus” from the website to some physical location. This Note will discuss the history of Title III of the ADA and analyze the circuit split surrounding places of public accommodations as it pertains to websites and mobile applications. In doing so, this Note will discuss how each branch of Government has a role to play in solving this issue, and how, ultimately, Congress is in the best position to solve this issue by adding a Sixth Title to the ADA. Lastly, this Note will discuss steps businesses of all sizes can take to avoid costly web accessibility litigation
Is the Statutory 60-Day Deadline for Filing a Petition for Review of a Final MSPB Order Jurisdictional?
Get PDFCase at a Glance: The Department of Defense (DOD) furloughed employee Stuart R. Harrow in 2013. Harrow timely challenged DOD’s decision before an administrative judge, who affirmed it. Harrow timely appealed the judge’s decision to the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB or “Board”), which could not act on the appeal for over five years because it lacked a quorum. On May 11, 2022, the MSPB issued a final order, affirming the judge’s decision. However, Harrow did not learn of the decision until August 30. Harrow promptly filed a petition to review the Board’s order with the Federal Circuit, which denied the petition on grounds that Harrow missed the statutory 60-day filing deadline. This case presents the question of whether the statute’s filing deadline is jurisdictional and therefore not subject to equitable tolling
Traumatic Brain Injury: Impact of Falls on Occupational Performance and their Caregiver
Get PDFTraumatic brain injury (TBI) is one of the leading causes of disability and expenses in healthcare. Many signs and symptoms occur as a result of TBI making it difficult for medical disciplines to pinpoint healthcare treatments to address these deficits. Falls are not only the leading cause of TBI but also of recurrent TBIs (rTBIs) due to physiological and sensorimotor changes in an individual after injury. The aim of this research is to investigate the gap in knowledge surrounding falls after a TBI by surveying and interviewing caregivers on their experiences with the person they are providing caregiving. Data was analyzed using SPSS in which significant correlations demonstrated a relationship between the presence of falls and caregiver strain (
Does Follow-Up Contact Impact Caregiver Perceptions and Reports of Usage of the Go Baby Go Car
Get PDFPrevious studies have shown that a lack of follow-up from a child’s care team affects the level of usage of an assistive technology device. Occupational therapy plays a role in improving this carryover. The present study investigates the use of the Go Baby Go powered ride on toy vehicles and their ability to promote children’s independence, mobility, exploration, and participation in play through caregiver interviews. The qualitative research design employed was a descriptive phenomenology to understand the meaning to the caregivers of their child’s receipt of and use of the Go Baby Go assistive technology in order to facilitate mobility and play. A semi-structured interview with follow-up questions was conducted and thematic analysis of the data revealed four salient themes: further alterations, caregiver buy-in, appreciation of resources, and impact on play. This study offers critical insight of the caregiver perception of the Go Baby Go cars and how it impacts child participation and well-being as well as how follow-up communication and assistance with Go Baby Go cars can impact abandonment and usage. This illustrates to health care providers and Go Baby Go teams how to best interact with the children and caregivers to enhance their experience
Creative Economies, Inclusive Communities: Arts-Based Development in West Virginia
Get PDFSince 2020, the WVU Center for Resilient Communities and RiffRaff Arts Collective (RRAC) have worked in partnership to advance action research on arts-based development in Appalachia. RiffRaff Arts Collective inspires and empowers the arts and creativity in downtown Princeton, West Virginia, Southern WV and the Appalachian region. For 20 years the RRAC have drawn upon the power of music and the arts to promote healing, growth and transformation in small towns. By providing venues for expression and producing events and experiences that inspire and uplift, the RRAC is helping to reestablish the social and economic vitality of their neighborhood, the Mercer Street Grassroots District
