NJ Governor to Honest Gun Owners: You're Potential Criminals/Threat to Public Safety

[cyberdogg]

Corzine to Millions of Honest Gun Owners: You're Potential Criminals and a Threat to Public Safety

It's a common knowledge among vigilant gun owners and CCWers NJ is one of the most restrictive states in the nation when it comes to gun rights.

I vow to never visit Garden State as long as it treats citizens and visitors like slave-subjects with gun rights deliberately difficult to obtain, restricted and denied.

NJ is a "may issue" state, yet Ordinary Joe/Jane's CCW application is routinely denied except for some qualified judges, retired LEOs and those with connections i.e. "requirement" of power, prestige and wealth not unlike rare and elusive "unrestricted" carry NYC permit.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[msgt/ret]

You really can't expect much from a governor who thinks he is above the law. After all speed limits and other laws are for commoners.

Trooper speeding revealed in Corzine crash - USATODAY.com

[Donodii]

I like his comment in the article on guns in the hands of potential criminals
"We will never compromise, not even one inch, where public safety is concerned,"

BUT, we read the other artivel where he allowed a state trooper to drive at 91 in a 65, and HE was not wearing a seatbelt. Looks like he put the public safety on the back burner. Oh wait he is an eliteist.

[goldshellback]

Says alot about the 'subjects' there who elected him.

[smotta]

Bet his security detail is armed....

It's a public threat I tell you! (Governors like this I mean)

[David in FL]

Says alot about the 'subjects' there who elected him.

The very definition of a self-inflicted wound.

[jbs]

One of New jersey's senators just spoke in the senate stating a cop was killed last night by a criminal with an illegal handgun. Terrible for the officer but trying to justify cc as the problem or cause for this to defeat the ammendment is idiotic. Even Harry Reid who see's the writing on the wall for his re-election, came out and supported the ammendment. I'll bet NJ tries to ban cc if the ammendment and bill passes, but i think the people will prevent that.

[shooterX]

What a tool.

[automatic slim]

Great article by Scott Bach. As for Corzine, what do you expect from a charter member of the Mafia?

[srtops]

The Supreme Court case referenced in Bach's article is consistent with previous court findings. In my book I reference the 1981 Warren vs. District of Columbia case. Following is a synopshis of that case.

In the 1981 case of Warren vs. District of Columbia the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that police are not liable for failure to provide adequate police protection. This case was based on the fact that two men broke into a home shared by three women in the Northwest section of the District of Columbia. Two women shared space in an upper floor, while the third woman shared space with her young child on the lower floor.

The two suspects in this case sexually assaulted the woman on the lower floor of the house. Screams were heard by the woman’s two roommates, and they promptly called the police for help. The DC dispatcher did indeed dispatch cars to the residence, but gave it a low priority for response.

An officer drove through the alley behind the residence and around to the front, but did not stop. Another officer knocked on the residence’s door, but after getting no answer, left. This was all observed by the victim’s roommates, who had crawled out onto the roof.

After the police left, the victim’s roommates reentered the house. Still hearing screams, they called police a second time and told them their roommate was still being assaulted. The police dispatcher once again dispatched officers, but dispatched it as “investigate the trouble” – a very low priority.

After the victim stopped screaming, her roommates called down to the victim. Unbeknownst to them, the two assailants were still in the home. Knowing additional victims were present, the assailants forced the first victim upstairs with her two roommates. For the next fourteen hours the two assailants sexually assaulted the three women.

Fortunately for these three victims the suspects chose not to kill them. The victims filed a law suit against the city, which was dismissed based on the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public service, such as police protection, to an individual – this general duty applies only to the public at large. Therefore, the trial court dismissed the suit. Subsequently, the DC Court of Appeals upheld this dismissal based on the “general duty” not being specific to individuals – only to the “public at large.”

[joe26]

Bet his security detail is armed....

It's a public threat I tell you! (Governors like this I mean)

they are. the one handgun a month bill is a joke. It's not like you can get a pistol permit approved in a month anyway.