NJ Woman Brutally Murdered While Waiting for Pistol Permit to Protect Herself

So you would take this choice away from others? Many people would have a problem with that.

What works for you in your situation may not work for others. Would you not have a legitimate concern if you were an older woman living in your house of many years in a area with a violent crime rate so high that up to one person in 7 is a victim of a violent crime each year?

Ivory Tower Libs would suggest such people move away or take their chances. They also mollycoddle the thugs that do the crime there (with guns or not) and squeal aloud when one of the thugs is treated too harshly by the police.

 

This is an a potential important issue. Most people do not own any guns, but what if for some reason their personal life situation rapidly changed and there suddenly became a need for them to be able to defend themselves?

This reminds me of a dilemma I have read about with Alzheimers patients where they may have to decide beforehand whether to give permission to their relatives or the hospital to allow them to die if things should deteriorate. But if the patient waits to see how bad things actually get, they may no longer have the mental capacity to be able to give their consent when the time comes.

 

Obviously Wild Bill Hickok would. So would Bat Masterson and the Earp bros. to name just a few. Sorry, but you can't just get drunk and shoot up the town anymore.

 

Of course it does.

We don't know yet, but it sounds like she knew the boyfriend was on his way. It takes me 15 seconds to get out my back gate.

A gun on your hip is to paranoia as alcohol is to the shakes. Seek treatment.

 

And like a typical banner, you assume everything happens in a way that suits your argument. She might have had warning, she might not. She might have been able to shoot her attacker early enough to stop her murder, she might still be stabbed but not mortally.

You hypothesize she was denied the permit because of a slow bureaucracy, and you assume she procrastinated.

And most important of all, it does no harm for her to be armed. Maybe she would be able to use the firearm, maybe not, but with it she has a better chance.

 

And that is the point isn't it? The Sheriff broke the law by not processing her application in the mandated time frame. The victims family should be able to sue in court.
Phoebe wants to focus on the victims decisions not to run and we don't truly even know if she had the chance. Since it happened in the driveway, maybe she was leaving right when he pulled up and he blocked her exit. Who knows? She blames the victim and not the system.

 

Imagine if there was a wait period for an abortion, and a woman died from the pregnancy.

You would see all the people in this thread doubting whether or not permission from the Almighty State to allow this woman to defend her life (all maybes, ifs, and buts aside) would have changed the outcome, would be bleeding from the eyes ignoring all the ifs, ands, and buts in whether or not the waiting period actually caused the pregnant mothers death (maybe she would have died in surgery? Or MRSA in the hospital?).

The sheriff out to be charged with a crime.

 

You haven't been around abuse victims have you? The victim is harassed, threatened, and driven to lengths that a normal person wouldn't be driven to. Most people don't think they need a gun until they do.

In terms of this story, from what little information was given, the boy friend threatened and harassed her. The harassed sometimes get a kick out of the harassment alone (think bully) and being able to control another person's actions through harassment and violence is a big part of the power trip. Having a gun removes the disparity of force from the harassed to the one bring harassed for the most part. Guns are dangerous, but that danger can be controlled and directed at those that wish to do us harm.

This woman wasn't able to get that force disparity in time because of idiotic gun laws that only law abiding folks follow anywaus. If she had been in Washington state, she would have at least had a pistol in hand instead of harsh language. Whatever your feelings on firearms, you can't deny that a gun is a force multiplier and that it removes a lot of the physical aspect of fights.

 

Might be why she was killed in her driveway. They have something called cell phones you know.

 

So you are saying that absolutely no one has a good, and legitimate reason to possess a firearm for their own personal protection?

There is little in the way of leeway for interpreting your statement as anything else. This thread discusses a woman who was the victim of domestic violence, and thus with a record of proof that she faced considerable danger. What more would she have needed to do, in your opinion, to warrant being armed?

 

Wrong. You're referring to certain Kansas and Arizona lawmen and the prohibition of open carry within their jurisdiction. In Dodge City the prohibition was only within the areas in which the cowboys would congregate to drink and carouse. It did not apply to other areas of the town and certainly not to most of the citizenry who were exempt. The law was very similar in Tombstone and altered to suit the regular citizens. In both towns the laws were early and effective forms of profiling and directed ONLY against those at risk of committing the majority of the crimes. Liberalism is truly a mental disorder and liberal love to lie.

 

True enough! But remember, we're talking about a case were she was afraid for her life and therefore sought a weapon for protection....not just getting a gun for general home protection or because she carried a lot of cash because of her job.

 

Perhaps someone would like to discuss the case of Jeff Muller, also from the state of New Jersey. He was subjected to kidnapping at gunpoint by three individuals. Despite this fact, he was denied a concealed carry permit by the state at least twice, because he had not demonstrated that his well being was at risk at the time of his application.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/05/sussex_county_judge_allows_kid.html

If being kidnapped and threatened with murder is not good enough reason to warrant carrying a firearm as far as the state of New Jersey is concerned, one must wonder just what would amount to good enough reason.

 

They're in jail, as the judge said. Unless there is some type of evidence to support a possible threat prior to testimony, the judge made a proper call. Personally, if I were him I just carry a gun before appearing in court. If attacked, he'll live to take a rap, which would probably result in a fine.

 

If I am confronted with armed attackers, I can shoot them dead, most likely without going to court, paying a fine, or facing potential civil charges. That would be up to the local law enforcement and possibly a grand jury. Is this fine another New Jersey tax?

 

Your questions slant in one direction, they reveal your true opinion.

 

It will never replace the lost life....but I would personally like to see the state of NJ sued and be forced to pay her survivors a huge sum. $100,000,000 wouldn't be enough.

The state of NJ is responsible for her death imo.

It's time to teach NJ a VERY hard lesson in Constitutional RIGHTS.

 

I am trying to find the mandatory penalty in the New Jersey state laws, but I am having a hard time doing it. I see a lot of secondary sources hat say an unlawful concealed firearm is punishable by up to 5 years in prison. The woman would have been crucified for unlawful concealed carry, illegal possession of a gun, manslaughter, and mountains of legal fees.

 

So being a victim of violent crime does not prove that you have a legitimate reason to fear for your own safety?

 

politicians who continue to allow the arbitrary May Issue permits are in violation of the constitution and should be thrown out of office

 

I don't live in New Jersey, so I don't know.

But let's be clear, there is a difference between a guy illegally carrying a gun because he is facing a viable threat based on recent events and circumstances, and some joker walking around with a gun "just in case". A lot of women go through YEARS of abuse before they get pro-active...my question time and again is how long did this woman wait before she wised up and put in for those gun permits. I don't deny the bureaucratic screw-ups and BS she faced.

- - - Updated - - -

Continuously? No. You'd have to prove the constant threat exists. But re-read my response above.

 

Baloney....I just put forth questions that you don't dare answer because you'd have to concede that this BS gunner mantra of "gun laws kill people" just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

- - - Updated - - -

She wasn't a member of a state militia, so she didn't have an automatic "right" to a weapon ASAP. Other than that, all that can be done is to take those in question to task for the bureaucratic foul ups.

 

A bureaucratic foul up that resulted in the death of someone. That is negligence and they should be sued.

 

Baloney. If you poll New Jersey state militia members, what percentage of them are allowed to own guns? You make it sound like being in the national guard is grounds for New Jersey to start handing out assault rifles and lollipops. The right to keep and bear arms belong to the people and not the government.

I have fewer infringements on my gun rights as a civilian than when I was in the Texas Air National Guard or Active Duty Air Force. Why is it more convenient to keep my son's guns in TX while he is stationed in another state? Even if he gets a CHL, he is not allowed to keep a gun in his truck while on base, and he lives on base.

 

Each state is entitled to their own laws and regulations, Tex....been that way since the inception of the country. You don't like it, start a political movement to amend the Constitution to your liking.

That being said, my previous statements/questions about this poor woman in NJ stands valid....and the statement that delays in obtaining her weapon resulted in her death is supposition and conjecture at best.