Voter Outrage In Suffolk County
This morning I was denied the right to vote .
Let me explain . When I showed up at my polling place at 6am this morning and walked over to my election district table to pick up my ballot imagine my surprise when the election official informed me that not only was my name not in the rolls but the book with the voter registration names in it that we have to sign into , without any ID mind you , was missing pages 1 through 10 and 12 through 60 .
I live in a smallish town in Suffolk county but even so those nearly sixty missing pages account for approximately 600 voters who have been disenfranchised . To be fair I was offered two alternatives: casting an “affidavit ballot” , which I initially chose , or returning to the polls some hours from now when a “new book” could be delivered from the county seat an hour and a half’s drive away .
Unbeknownst to me when I accepted the “affidavit ballot” , I was given a special envelope that required me to fill out all manner of personal information including “party affiliation” . My conditional ballot would then be sealed into this envelope and allegedly transported to the county seat and be counted at the end of the day with all of those who were allowed to vote in the usual way .
After starting to cast my ballot and being given the envelope , I refused to fill out said envelope which would have denied me my anonymity as the election officials opening my envelope would have been able to associate my votes with a name thus denying me the confidentiality afforded to all of the voters who’s names were in the registration book .
I for one am lucky enough that I can return later in the day to try again . After driving away it came to me that since they have already recorded my name in the book as having cast an “affidavit ballot” are they going to be competent enough to record the fact that I refused to turn in my ballot and erase the botched transaction ?
This is an outrage that only lends credence to the notion that our government is too incompetent to be trusted with anything of importance and one has to wonder how many of these +/- 600 voters will even be able to make a second trip to the polls . This is Andrew Cuomo’s New York folks .
Good luck . To be continued … We’ll see if I am allowed to cast a real ballot when I return this afternoon after refusing to complete my “affidavit ballot”
” Only days after California’s precedent setting bill authorizing confiscatory gun seizures from those deemed a risk becoming law, the Empire State may be next to examine the concept.
A new bill intended for the state Assembly, modeled after California’s AB1014, was debuted this week by a Manhattan Democrat. Like the West Coast law, the first of its kind in the nation, it would set up a framework to deny firearm possession to those believed to be dangerous.
“ So this is a bill that would permit family members or friends or medical professionals or law enforcement or really anyone who’s concerned that somebody having to access to guns poses a serious danger to go to a court and present evidence of that, and if the court were persuaded, they would be able to issue a temporary order preventing the person from acquiring or possessing guns,” Assemblyman Brian Kavanagh, author of the legislation, told WAMC this week.
Kavanagh’s bill, as detailed in a release from his office, is intended to provide another tool in society’s toolbox to prevent gun violence. The avenue to implement the so-called gun violence restraining order would be the court system, who, upon being presented with a petition that contends an individual’s possession of guns in their current state could pose a general danger, could authorize an order to confiscate the firearms involved.”
Given the left-wing proclivities of the New York court system , one can only imagine the “preponderance of evidence” that will be needed to deprive a “suspected threat” of his/her rights to due process and the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” . This is yet another example of the rule of law being turned on it’s ear and all of us peons being guilty until we can prove otherwise . Read it and weep …
We have entered the age of the “thought police” . Now we will be prosecuted/persecuted , like hate crimes , based on perceptions and not on our actions … Land Of Liberty ? DOA …
” The action became very real for a 17-year-old Long Beach resident who was playing the video game Call of Duty on Tuesday, after a bitter online opponent called police and falsely claimed that the teen had fatally shot his mother and brother in his Laurelton Boulevard home.
Long Beach Police Commissioner Michael Tangney said that the teenager had just won a round of the popular online multi-player shooter game. But when a losing rival claiming to be the teen called police to report the bogus incident, it prompted a massive response — including a fully armed Nassau County SWAT team with an armored vehicle and a helicopter unit — to what was initially believed to be a multiple shooting and hostage situation.
Tangney said that when police arrived at the house at around 3 p.m., 17-year-old Long Beach High School student Rafael Castillo was still playing the game on Xbox while wearing a headset and had no idea what was happening outside.”
It was one mighty expensive hoax phone call …
” “He was quite stunned — he was very shaken up by it,” Tangney said, adding that the police response could cost roughly $100,000.
More than 50 county, Long Beach and MTA police officers, and firefighters responded to the home. Nearby streets were blocked off as numerous police vehicles rushed to scene. The standoff lasted more than an hour and attracted crowds of onlookers who milled about, saying that they learned about the incident on social media.”
Continue reading at LI Herald
” In the April issue of Townhall Magazine, Bearing Arms editor Bob Owens asks what would happen if a liberal government passed a new gun law but nobody obeyed it?
Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) signed what the Hartford Courant called “the toughest assault weapons legislation in the nation” last year. It required owners of semi-automatic firearms to register all firearms designated as “assault weapons” with the state government, along with any “high capacity” magazines they may own, by December 31, 2013.
The Malloy regime expected Connecticut residents to register somewhere between 372,000-400,000 firearms, and roughly 2 million firearm magazines that held more than 10 rounds before January 1.
What they got instead was defiance. “
And as Bob points out , the results in New York , while not quite finalized , are likely to be even more dismal for the Statists in Albany .
” A nearly identical problem is brewing next door in the much larger, more populous state of New York, thanks to Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s hastily-passed NY SAFE Act. That law demands that New Yorkers register their semi-automatic “assault rifles” with the government by April 15.
While Connecticut is thought to have something less than 400,000 firearms classified as “assault weapons” under their law, New York is thought to have as many as 1 million firearms meeting New York’s revised criteria.
Cuomo faces an even bigger registration problem in New York than Malloy did in Connecticut because many of New York’s sheriffs are in near open revolt against the SAFE Act, and have stated publicly that they will not enforce it. While they have been less publicly vocal, New York State Troopers have quietly indicated that they, too, will do as little as possible to enforce the law.”
Read Mr Owens’ entire piece here .
” Following a federal judge’s ruling in December that the seven-round magazine limit imposed under the New York SAFE Act was “tenuous, straitened, and unsupported” and therefore unconstitutional, state police have updated their filed guide on the controversial law to urge officers not to enforce the arbitrary magazine limit.
The announcement on the revisions to the New York State Police NY SAFE Act Guide was made on Wednesday and came via the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association.
“ The New York State Police have followed the same sensible path taken by the New York Sheriffs’ Association and many local law-enforcement agencies in not enforcing a capricious, ill-conceived and unconstitutional portion of the NY SAFE Act,” stated NYSRPA President Thomas King in a press release.
“ To date, NYSRPA has spent over $500,000 in litigation and we are prepared to fight the NY SAFE Act all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where we are confident that many provisions of the law will ultimately be overturned,” he continued.”
Read more here and the NYSRPA press release is below …
” NYSRPA pleased police will not enforce SAFE Act provision – The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association is pleased to announce that the Revised New York State Police NY SAFE Act Guide instructs its members not to enforce the 7-round magazine limit originally imposed by the hastily enacted measure.
” This is a direct result of the December 31, 2013 ruling in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York on litigation filed by NYSRPA,” said NYSRPA President Thomas King. The court ruled that the unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices (fully loaded 10-round magazines) was unconstitutional.
” The New York State Police have followed the same sensible path taken by the New York Sheriffs’ Association and many local law-enforcement agencies in not enforcing a capricious, ill-conceived and unconstitutional portion of the NY SAFE Act,” stated King. “To date, NYSRPA has spent over $500,000 in litigation and we are prepared to fight the NY SAFE Act all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where we are confident that many provisions of the law will ultimately be overturned.”
Citing the secretive and hurried process in which the NY SAFE Act became law, King said, “Lawmakers, mental health professionals, and New York’s gun owners were essentially ignored in the rush to enact this law. As a result, careful judicial scrutiny is uncovering some of the law’s flaws and unenforceability. New York’s legal gun owners are among the most law-abiding citizens of this state and ultimately their civil rights will be upheld.” “
” A high school student in upstate New York was suspended for wearing an NRA T-shirt that touted the second amendment after he refused to turn it inside out or cover the words with duct tape.
Shane Kinney, a 16-year-old sophomore from Grand Island, located between Niagara Falls and Buffalo, said he served a one-day, in-school suspension Monday after he refused last Friday to turn his T-shirt inside out at the request of the vice principal at Grand Island High School. The shirt was emblazoned with the NRA logo and the words, “2nd Amendment Shall not be Infringed” across the back.
“ Mr. Lauria [the vice principal] told me I had to either turn the shirt inside out or put duct tape over the words,” Shane Kinney told FoxNews.com. “I told them that I wasn’t going to do it. I had to sit in the suspension room and eat lunch alone until my father brought me a new shirt to school.” “
Fox News has the whole story which is eerily reminiscent of Jared Marcum’s plight except that Jared was also arrested .
” Family members have been arguing that it was a clear case of self-defense when a Huntington Station man shot and killed an alleged home burglar.
But Youssef Abdel-Gawad has been charged with manslaughter, even though he said he was only trying to protect his family, WCBS 880 Long Island Bureau Chief Mike Xirinachs reported Tuesday.
The family hopes surveillance video will clear their son, CBS 2’s Jennifer McLogan reported.
“ It’s a sad situation,” said the defendant’s brother, Ramy Abdel-Gawad. “Video will show, you know, he was doing what anybody would do to protect his family.”
The Abdel-Gawads’ own surveillance cameras were rolling at the home, according to police, at the time of the incident back on Aug. 21 of last year.”
We assume that because the suspects were put to flight before the fatal shot that the LI police are maintaining that the danger was past and thus the situation did not merit the discharge of the shotgun . Ok . But if that be the case then shouldn’t all police be suspect whenever they shoot a fleeing suspect ?
According to the report , the DA doubts that the perp fired a shot but isn’t the presence of the gun reason enough for an act of self-defense ? Since when do the thugs have a right to the first shot for free ?
When we were younger there was a policy (unwritten or official ?) that police could only shoot in self-defense or in the face of imminent peril for others . That no longer seems to be the case as we read all the time of cops shooting at perps in flight . If it’s ok for them then why not for civilians defending their homes and families ?
Apparently the Supreme Court’s Tennessee v Gardner ruling in 1985 cleared the way for cops to shoot people in the back if the had committed a felony and if that is the justification for law enforcement , surely the civilian populace should be afforded the same rights , no ?
CBSLocal has the story