|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
NJ: Carol Bowne Murdered by Ex-boyfriend.. and New Jersey Laws
Submitted by:
Robert Morse
Website: http://slowfacts.wordpress.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Carol Bowne is dead. The petite hairdresser was murdered by her ex-boyfriend.. and by the state of New Jersey. Bowne had received threats. She did everything a law-abiding citizen could do. She obtained a protective order. She installed security cameras inside and outside her home.
Ms. Bowne tried to get a firearm for self-defense. She started the long process to be allowed to buy a gun in New Jersey. The state delayed her application and Bowne ran out of time.
The man who stabbed Carol Bowne to death was a convicted felon. He had a previous charge of battery and armed kidnapping of another women. The police knew her murderer.. and yet they denied Carol Bowne a firearm purchase permit to defend herself. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(6/8/2015)
|
Just about every NJ legislator needs to be smeared with this lady's blood everyday on their way into the State House just as a reminder of the consequences NJ citizens bear because of their conceits.
We will never know if Ms. Browne could have successfully defended herself. She - thanks to smug, self-righteous conceits regarding self-defense by NJ legislators - never had the chance. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
