Skip to main content
  1. News
  2. Politics
  3. Policy & Issues

Foiled carjacking shows different outcome potentials when gun owners have choice

See also

A New Hampshire man thwarted an attempted carjacking by pulling his lawfully carried firearm and holding the suspect for police, CBS Boston reported Wednesday from Nashua.

“As he started to get in, I didn’t have time to think about it, I just reacted, by the time he got in my car, I had my weapon out and pointed at his head,” the report quoted gun owner Paul Jensen.

New Hampshire is a “shall issue” state. That means, assuming a person is not statutorily prohibited from owning a gun, authorities must permit the concealed carrying of firearms in accordance with state law.

“The process is simple and straight forward,” advises. “Cost is $10 and the License/Permit is valid for four years.”

Compare this outcome, where no one was injured because the presence of a gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen ended the carjacking attempt without the need to resort to actual violence (so much for the frequent accusation that gun owners are violent and just itching to shoot someone if they get the chance), with the outcome of another carjacking a few days earlier in Newark, New Jersey, when a young lawyer was shot to death in front of his wife.

‘Issuance of the permit is almost completely discretionary, and New Jersey courts have upheld the policy of strictly limiting permits ‘to persons specifically employed in security work . . . and to others who can establish an urgent necessity for carrying guns for self-protection’,” that column noted, quoting USA Carry reports.

No one is arguing the situations in Nashua and Newark were the same or that being armed always guarantees a happy ending. Jensen is lucky his assailant was unarmed, and he should have had his door locked. And the unforgiveable situation in New Jersey may still have ended tragically, even had the lawyer been armed. We’ll never know.

The question here is who has the moral authority to tell another human being they do not have a right to defend themselves? And that all such decisions will be made for them by armed functionaries of the state, who are under no legal obligation to protect those they so cavalierly deny a choice in the matter to…?


If you're a regular Gun Rights Examiner reader and believe it provides news and perspectives you won't find in the mainstream press, please subscribe to this column and help spread the word by sharing links, promoting it on social media like Facebook (David Codrea) and Twitter (@dcodrea), and telling your like-minded friends about it. And for more commentary, be sure to visit "The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance."


When it comes to gun laws, the antis love them so much they’d like to make a patchwork quilt out of them. The latest GUNS Magazine "Rights Watch" column is online, and you can read it before the issue hits the stands. Click here to read "Preemptive Strike.”



  • Mt. Everest avalanche
    Disaster strikes Mt. Everest as at least 12 people were killed in an avalanche
    Watch Video
  • Most Earthlike planet discovered
    The Kepler telescope has discovered the most Earthlike, possibly habitable planet yet
    Space News
  • Easter crosses create debate
    Easter crosses spark a debate of separation of church and state in Ohio
  • Chelsea Clinton is preggers
    Former first daughter Chelsea Clinton is pregnant with her first child
  • Stanley Cup playoffs
    The battle for Lord Stanley's Cup is on, don't miss a minute of playoff action
  • Ukraine discussed amongst U.S., E.U., Russia
    The U.S., E.U. and Russia agree on ways to diffuse the tension in Ukraine
    Watch Video

User login

Log in
Sign in with your email and password. Or reset your password.
Write for us
Interested in becoming an Examiner and sharing your experience and passion? We're always looking for quality writers. Find out more about and apply today!