JAY – A local couple has been arrested and charged with a combined three felonies following an incident Wednesday in which shots were allegedly fired during the attempted repossession of a vehicle.
According to Jay Police Department Det. Mike Mejia, law enforcement received a complaint on the Intervale Road at 9:48 p.m. from a wrecker operator working for an asset recovery company. The operator was reportedly attempting to repossess a vehicle from William Bowie, 55 of Jay, when Bowie came outside and fired three rounds from a handgun. After firing the shots, Mejia said, Bowie handed the handgun to his wife, Jacqueline Bowie, 55 of Jay, who “continued to aim the gun at the wrecker operator” while William Bowie got into the vehicle and drove it away.
JPD Cpl. Jeffrey Fournier responded and collected evidence at the scene. When he tried to speak to Jacqueline Bowie, Mejia said, she was uncooperative. A .45 caliber handgun was recovered from the scene.
Police determined that William Bowie was a convicted felon in Maine and therefore prohibited from possessing firearms. He has a previous felony conviction for reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon. Jay police obtained a search warrant for the property, with JPD Chief Richard Caton IV and Detective Mejia assisting Fournier.
William Bowie was located just prior to the search warrant’s execution, after police discovered he had returned home. After communicating with police via a cellphone, William Bowie walked out of the residence and was taken into custody without further incident.
Police seized nine firearms from the home as well as several rounds of ammunition, multiple fully-loaded magazines and tactical accessories.
William Bowie was arrested and charged with reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, both Class C felonies. Jacqueline Bowie was arrested and charged with reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon, a Class C felony.
JPD was assisted by the Maine State Police, Franklin County Sheriff’s Office and Livermore Falls Police Department.
Firearm laws work don’t they…. Must need more laws now
Criminals by definition don’t follow laws…so more laws clearly will work…blah
Maine question 3 would not prevent similar situations from occurring, since a criminal wouldn’t abide by the policies that it would put in place. Vote no on 3 this November.
I agree T.. I watch the news every morning at 4:30 when channel 13 comes on and again from 5-6 at night. Most of what I see and here are COPS shooting UNARMED citizens. So please all of the people who think voting yes on #3 is the way it should be. Remember the people who died who didn’t have a weapon. I personally own a large collection of firearms and guess what folks I have NEVER EVER had a gun discharge unless it was held by me. So let’s say someone makes an assault with a knife or a pair of sizzor or should the government try to create a ban from those items too? We as humans can make a weapon out of about anything if we wanted… tire iron,stove poker or even something as simple as a brick..etc so I agree vote no on 3 it won’t help anyone to be governed
United states Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.. in 2016 the supreme Court Caetano vs Massachusetts the supreme “Court reiterated the second amendment extends prima facie, to All instruments that constitute bearable arms even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding” I encourage everyone to take a look at the Constitution!! It’s better than Facebook and we all could learn something. Maby even Hillary Clinton!!
A repo man spends his life getting into tense situations.
sell the guns and pay the car payment !
Really people is a vehicle really worth a human life.Think beforeyou act.
To quote Harry Dean Stanton to Emilio Estevez, in the movie “Repo Man”, The life of a repo man is always intense”.
NO on 3!!!! If this gets passed, the next step will be gun registration. Check out what the UN treaty on small arms ban covers. The President signed it! Think it can’t happen here???? Don’t kid yourself! When the ability of the people to resist the dictatorial powers of the government are removed we will be in no position to resist tyrrany. We need the ability to protect what little freedoms we have left. Exercise your right to vote on Tuesday November 8th. See you at the polls.
I don’t care which side of the gun debate you are on, but how does an article about an obviously troubled person firing a handgun in the vicinity of a person legally carrying out their job become a platform for “No on #3”?
Does #3 give one the right to shoot repo men? Tom is right.Pay your car pmts first although this guy won’t be needing a car for a while.
Mike, because it follows a trend to increase gun laws any time emotions are involved. The constitution is disregarded when emotion plays on heart strings. So anytime a gun incident happens the liberal media start screaming “more gun laws” so the opposition come out swinging too.
Thanks “Nftb”. Wouldn’t it be nice if maybe we could talk to each other ,instead of screaming at each other?
Tman, Outsider:
What part of your background check are you most nervous about?
Oh boy, here we go again!
So, the way it is now is that anyone can sell a gun to anyone else? What if the buyer goes out and kills someone or turns the gun on himself, is the seller in any trouble? Clearly I don’t know much about gun laws.
@ Omar-
It is not about background checks. It’s more an issue of the hoops that law abiding citizens would have to jump through, monetary impacts and forfeiture of freedom.
I would also like to see the people of Maine show Michael Bloomberg that he cant simply dump buckets of cash on us to get his way- Every Town for Gun Safety. Question 3 isn’t about gun safety, its a paving stone for a national gun registry and another way to bleed money from the people.
Setting my emotions aside I ask: Could anyone using rational and logical thoughts tell me why requiring gun sales to happen at a licensed dealer would be a bad thing? I’m looking for someone to answer this without the tough guy talk and one liners that sound more like an defensive nonsensical echo of of political advertisements as a personal response. Just talk this out by clearly in your own words to explain the reason it would be bad to require a background check.
My thoughts on this issue: undecided but I still need to answer these questions….
Wouldn’t this simple act make it a sure thing that you aren’t selling your old 9mm or semi auto to someone with sever mental health issues, convicted felons, or someone on a terror alert list? I know people defend and say they will get one anyway but maybe we don’t want to make it so simple as meeting in a parking lot? I know I wouldn’t want to be held responsible for it. I know most gun owners are law abiding and responsible, I’m one, but I know a couple handful of people (I bet you do too) who should absolutely not have access. I had to have my license called in when I purchased a gun and I didn’t worry one bit about being denied.
Current conclusion:
It just seems like not having a simple background check makes it that much easier to arm bad people.
Would any law enforcement officers like to weigh in on this from a public safety perspective?
Perhaps this infringes on the business of selling guns more than on the good people who own them?
Here is language verbatim in question 3: Make your own choice.
“Do you want to require background checks prior to the sale or transfer of firearms between individuals not licensed as firearms dealers, with failure to do so punishable by law, and with some exceptions for family members, hunting, self-defense, lawful competitions, and shooting range activity?”
Summary:
“If approved, Question 3 would also require that in cases when neither party is licensed, they must meet at a licensed dealer, who would then complete a background check on the transferee. Background check exceptions would include emergency self-defense, while the parties are hunting or sport shooting, and transfers between family members. Currently, Maine does not have a state law regarding background checks for gun sales and follows federal laws that require background checks for all gun sales by licensed dealers.”
Omar Mateen was investigated by the FBI for possible terrorism before passing a background check to purchase the rifle and pistol he used in the Orlando nightclub shooting. Jared Loughner shot Gabrielle Gifford and 19 others with a gun he legally purchased from a gun dealer after he passed a federal background check. Nancy Lanza legally owned the firearms her son used to kill her at their home and students and faculty at Sandy Hook. James Holmes used three guns legally purchased from three different gun dealers in the Aurora movie theater shooting. Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people using two handguns he legally purchased after being declared mentally ill. Chris Kyle was shot at a gun range with his own gun by a man he brought there. It’s not the guns’ fault they were involved in these tragedies. The same gun in different hands could’ve won trophies, prevented crime or filled the freezer.
The common denominator here is callousness towards humanity caused or accompanied by some form of mental illness. All of these cases were riddled with red flags leading up to the attacks but nothing was done to prevent them.
Question 3 is the proverbial bandaid on a broken arm. We should be focused on what makes these individuals want to perform such heinous acts rather than targeting everyone who owns, buys or borrows a gun. Universal background checks generalizes all gun owners/purchasers as potential criminals, which is as unfair as saying all immigrants are potential terrorists.
In criminal law, there are three things that must be proved to determine guilt: motive, means and opportunity. Question 3 is an attempt to remove the means but if motive and opportunity still exist, other means will be found.
While a 9mm killed 1 police officer and injured 16 others, it was two homemade bombs that killed 3 civilians and injured more than 260 people at the Boston Marathon. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured nearly 700 more in Oklahoma City using 5,000 lbs of homemade explosives in the back of a Ryder truck. Should we have background checks to buy a pressure cooker or rent a box truck?
@ B: You are so right.
“Could anyone using rational and logical thoughts tell me why requiring gun sales to happen at a licensed dealer would be a bad thing? I’m looking for someone to answer this without the tough guy talk and one liners that sound more like an defensive nonsensical echo of of political advertisements as a personal response. Just talk this out by clearly in your own words to explain the reason it would be bad to require a background check.”
Too many knee-jerk reactions on this simple question.
This was a really helpful and insightful discussion. Thanks all.
OK Marie,,
It’s a bad idea because it does not solve the problem.
Hows that?
Plus it is a very big deal when you start taking away peoples constitutional rights.
Where does that stop?
Sorry this isn’t 1000 words or more but honestly,,
It’s pretty simple.
If I can be made to insure and register my car, so that I can drive it, why not universal background checks, and liability insurance on each gun purchased and kept?
If I must pass a licensing test, (paper, and actual driving) to get my drivers license, then why not registering guns, and requiring a paper, and usage test to earn the permit to own, and carry a weapon, with annual renewal? Or even a renewal every 5 years? Like a drivers license?
Need to meet in the middle somewhere folks…..
Really confused now.
So a police removed 9 firearms from where convicted felon was living, after he discharged a weapon recklessly three times. He is not supposed to have any weapons. How did he get them? Where did the nine come from?
Can they be traced to the person/persons/stores they were purchased from? If from a store, or online, was a background check done? As they say in the movies, follow the money, or in this case follow the guns. Follow the law as currently written until the origin of the guns is found………Do the homework, and follow the law: Charge people who broke the law.
@ Confused: you must be with thinking like that. Don’t need a license to have a baby or have a dog ? I think we have already met in the middle.