Back and forth on Simon McCamy, a felon who possesses guns.

Today's post is a follow-on to one that I wrote back on March 1, 2009. That one started with an article in the Alaska Daily News on 2-27-2009 that reported that a Simon G. McCamy had been indicted on three counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Back then, I wrote that I was glad that the US Attorney was pursuing these charges because, while I'm all about increased gun rights and CCW for every law-abiding citizen, I didn't and still don't want bad people possessing guns, and by and large, felons are typically bad people and most of them are the sort of people that the rest of us choose to carry firearms for protection against.

This article has garnered the odd comment every now and again, many by people claiming to be reformed felons who describe minor infractions committed decades ago which now prevent them from owning firearms. Some, if true, are worthy of sympathy, to be sure. I've always made it my policy to approve for posting each one that wasn't obscene or personally insulting so they're there for any reader who wants to go back and look at them. Such readers will also see that, beginning a couple of days ago, I started getting comments from a Christina Barry, friend of Simon McCamy (according to her Google+ circle). She called me "stupix" and said that I didn't know anything about Simon's case and that he only had two DWIs and that he's just a nice guy who works 70 hours a week and walks on water in his spare time. Well having nothing better to do last night sine I work up and could not get back to sleep, I hauled the iPad off the night table and from the comfort of my warm, cozy, Germans-Shepherd-surrounded bed, I discovered some information about Mr. Simon McCamy that indicates that Miss Barry is either being disingenuous or doesn't know him as well as she thinks that she does.


Simon McCamy, Ketchikan, Alaska. W/M DOB 11-06-1978. Info from CourtView.

For the sake of brevity, I've left out his numerous traffic offences.

3-30-1996. 1st DWI arrest. 17 yrs old. Looks like they pled this one down to refusal to take a chemical test. Paid a $500 fine, or rather Marjorie McCamy paid it. I'm assuming that she's his mom.

7-1-1996, he was arrested for driving on that suspended drivers license. He couldn't even drive right for four months.

12-01-1998, we had another arrest. This was his second DWI arrest. Again he refused to take the chemical test, and his drivers license was still suspended. This one got him $1200 in additional fines (paid by Marjorie), a revoked drivers license, and time spent in the Ketchikan Correctional Complex. He's just 20 years old now.

6-24-1999. Arrested again for driving with his license suspended/revoked. This got him 10 more days in jail and got Marjorie another $250 fine.

He managed to keep his nose clean until 5-19-2002, and then he got his third DWI, this one a felony under Alaska's laws. He actually took this one to trial and wound up convicted. This time he was charged with resisting arrest as well, but the court subsequently dismissed that one. This one got him a two-year sentence, with 610 days suspended and 120 days in jail. He also got fined $5000 this time, which Marjorie paid.

In 2008, Simon was really a bad boy. On 5-30-2008, he was arrested again for driving without a license. (Yeah, eff the court, right Simon?) He was arrested again for Assault 3--a felony--and Domestic Violence on 10-14-2008. These were dismissed a year later during the trial process for some reason, however he was also arrested again on the following day--10-16-2008 and charged with felony witness tampering and unlawful contact, meaning that he violated a court-ordered protective order. He was found guilty on that and given another 2 year sentence, although I can't tell how much of that was actually spent incarcerated. There were more fines too, but Marjorie paid those, just like she put up his bail during this and the previous trial processes.

And now we come current. On 7-11-2013, the dumb ass got himself arrested for DWI yet again. (He just doesn't seem to learn, folks.) For some reason, they kept this one a misdemeanor but he got a year in jail suspended, with 30 days to serve, and he was only ordered to report to the jail on January 6th of this year, which is just a few days before his one-woman fan club, Christina Barry, began calling me "stupid" for not knowing that he was a really nice, hard-working guy.

But alas, Christina, I can read CourtView, and in CourtView I can find all sorts of records, including Simon McCamy's record, and even one for a Christina Lea Barry, born 8-1-1973, who was charged on 7-19-2013 with Theft 2--a Class C felony--and who is currently awaiting sentencing. Is that you, Christina? If so, write back from time to time and let us know how that case works out, k?

And now back to Simon McCamy again. It's fair to ask if Simon McCamy is one of these dangerous bad people that should be barred from ever possessing a firearm again. Some may argue that he's not, despite a record of domestic violence, fighting the police, and multiple DWIs that by themselves indicate extremely poor judgement and a pretty clear substance abuse problem. I can't honestly say for sure because, other than by his record, I don't know the guy. But the timing on the federal cases (which being federal, are not in CourtView) and the instances of him being found in possession of firearms in 2008 suggests that he had one on his person during his domestic violence arrest and his arrest the next day for witness tampering and violation of the protective order, and that's enough to convince me that his federal charges were appropriate and that his community won't be any less safe if he's permanently disarmed or incarcerated. Truth be told, it might actually be a better place as a result.

Everyone makes mistakes. I get that. But this guy's been making them for twenty years and shows no signs of changing his ways. So excuse me if I don't go hold a vigil demanding that his firearm rights be restored tomorrow.

Back to you, Christina Barry. And anyone else's thoughts are welcome as well.

Gun test-fire fail

Personally, I test-fire my weapons at a firing range, but Oklahoma's Tavares Colbert does it differently.

Man shoots self in genitals, is arrested.

Hopefully he did this in a way that puts an end to the possibility of him breeding. But I like the arrest for Felon in Possession that follows. That's just funny to me, as I'm sure it is to the prisoners at the jail that Colbert's likely at right now. Even convicts look down on stupid.

California Learns That Elections Have Consequences.

Hey--all you Californians who proudly voted for Obama, are you happy now?

After you gave him millions of campaign dollars, countless celebrity endorsements, and 55 electoral votes, he won. And then he put two leftists on the US Supreme Court, did that make you happy?

I hope so. Because those two leftist Justices, Kagan and Sotomayor, just swung the vote in favor of releasing up to 46,000 convicted felons from California's prisons.

Yeah, suck on that one, California. And next time you rush to the polls, remember that the guy that you're voting for gets to appoint people who might get to weigh your safety against the comfort of the worst sort of scumbags. Two more conservatives on the Court--or even two moderates--and you guys might not all have to start looking over your shoulder for all of those felons who will be coming out of prison, all short on cash.

Now a smart state government would at least try to mitigate the harm by culling out all of the illegal aliens in the prison system--and they make up a fair chunk of California's prisoners--and releasing them all straight to ICE for deportation. But California has not had a smart government since Ronald Reagan was governor, and the current bunch of looters are way too deeply indebted to the illegal alien lobbies to ever consider such a thing. I mean, that would be (all together now) RACIST!

So buy alarms, buy dogs and buy guns, Californians...Oops! Your government pretty much restricts your right to own guns too, doesn't it? And you voted for these people too!

Screw it. let all the felons out. Just make sure that there's a big border fence preventing any of them from getting out of the state, both felons and idiotic voters alike. I can accept losing that state, but I'm not willing to let it contaminate the rest of America with it's collective bad judgement and disregard for consequences.

when guns are outlawed, only felonious friends of Democrats will have guns

"Do as we say, not as we do" Example #647.

With our gun rights constantly under assault by Democrats (joined by a few traitorous Republicans), it's interesting to say the least that there is at least one group of people--other then themselves--who the Democrats seem to want to keep armed: drug-dealers with felony records.

Yep. In Delaware County, Pennsylvania, police were called to a rental car agency when employees there found a gun in a rental car that had been returned. Police determined that the car had been brought back by a guy named Andrew Cuff, and they discovered that Cuff was a convicted violent felon who was not allowed to own guns. They raided a garage of his and found more guns, narcotics, and $27,000 cash.

Normally this would not be very noteworthy, except that the gun in the rental car had been bought by and was registered to Edna Stockley, a Darby Borough Councilwoman and member of the Democratic Party. Police also found paperwork in her name for another gun, and when asked where it was, she first stated that it was in Cuff's garage, but then brought it into the police station herself.

Darby Borough, already ravaged by gun violence, was rocked yesterday by news that a convicted felon may have been in possession of handguns registered to borough Councilwoman Edna Stockley.

Andrew Cuff, 52, who has aggravated assault and firearms convictions, was arrested yesterday after police had searched his Mulberry Street garage last week and found two shotguns, drugs and $27,000 in cash.

But they also discovered gun paperwork - filled out by Stockley - for two 9mm pistols, said Darby police Chief Robert Smythe.

One of those guns was found last week under the driver's seat of a car that Cuff had returned to Enterprise Rent-A-Car in Philadelphia, Smythe said. Cuff's criminal record prohibits him from possessing a firearm.

The company turned the gun over to investigators from Philadelphia's gun-violence task force, who determined that it belonged to Stockley. She told investigators that it fell out of her purse when she was in the rental car with Cuff, Smythe said.

When asked about a second 9mm she owned, Stockley first said it was in Cuff's garage, but later brought it to police and said her brother – a borough constable – had it, according to Smythe.

Smythe said his department is not investigating Stockley because it would be a conflict of interest. He said that the case was turned over to the state Attorney General's Office. But the attorney general's spokesman, Kevin Harley, said last night that his office is not investigating Stockley.

Stockley, a Democrat elected in 2007, did not return a message left on her cell phone yesterday.

Paula Brown, Darby's former mayor and Stockley's political ally, denied Smythe's claim that Cuff is Stockley's boyfriend and accused Darby police of targeting Stockley because she has been critical of the department's payroll practices.

Smythe said politics played no role in the investigation.

"At some point in time," Smythe said, "she has to explain why she doesn't have the guns that are registered to her."

Stockley has been interviewed by the police several times, and she keeps giving inconsistent stories when asked to explain how her gun wound up beneath the seat of this drug dealer's car. She's also now blaming the police and her political opponents for the release of this story, again without explaining how this gun and possibly one other that was bought by and registered to her wound up in the possession of this criminal that she's apparently shacking up with.

The question now is what will the state Attorney General's, office do about this? This is a state well-known for tolerance of corruption by elected officials. But you can help by e-mailing Attorney General Tom Corbett's office at this link and voicing your support for a proper investigation and full public disclosure.

Personally I tire of Democrats telling us that we have to give up OUR guns in the name of public safety, all the while die-hard gun-banners like Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY)and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)own handguns and have permits to carry them, or have bodyguards armed with submachine guns like the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Chappaquiddick) did. Now we have a Democrat going into gun stores and buying multiple pistols then giving them to a drug dealer and convicted violent felon, all the while undoubtedly waiting for her chance to vote out of existence your guns and mine if given the chance.

In a related story, we now have a bill that has been passed in California which will end the ability of anyone in that state to order ammunition via the internet, phone or mail and have it delivered by UPS like the rest of us do. This bill, AB 962, now sits on the Governator's desk awaiting his signature or veto (or becoming law automatically if he does neither.) If it becomes law, I wonder how many Democrats will violate it either by using their political connections to get ammunition for their own guns or by selling or otherwise transferring ammunition to their felon or illegal alien friends and supporters. It is California, after all, and Democrats aren't exactly known for abiding by the laws that they impose on the rest of us.

EDIT: I had previously identified A.G. Tom Corbett as a Democrat, but a commenter pointed out that I was misinformed. I checked, and shame on me--I was. My apologies to Mr. Corbett.

Felons caught with guns? Alaska arrests warm my heart

Good job, police and US Attorney's office in Alaska. Indictments have just been handed down against Daniel Cox and Simon McCamy for possessing firearms.

Now as I'm a serious pro-gun guy, the thought of my fellow pro-gun Americans facing jail for such a thing would normally have me very upset. However in this case, since both Cox and McCamy are convicted felons, I very much approve.

The U.S. Attorney's office says Cox was found in possession of a firearm while in Anchorage last November, but has three felony convictions for drug misconduct, robbery and theft. McCamy was found with a firearm on three different occasions during a two-month period between last August and October, and each time is a violation after his previous felony conviction for driving under the influence. So now Cox is looking at ten years, and McCamy is looking at ten years times three--one hit for each occurrence. And I know that some of the whackos that infest the gun forums out there will not agree, but I hope they both get some time out of this.

You see, I'm one of those Americans who obeys the laws. I respect my fellow citizens and do not victimize or endanger them. I don't murder, rape, steal, rob people at gunpoint, deal or even use drugs, or habitually drive drunk. More to the point, I don't consider the small minority of people who do these things to be my peers or people that I want to see going around armed. Frankly, it's specifically because of people like this that I and other law-abiding Americans own guns. So for me to support the idea that these fools have some sort of undeniable right to own guns is ludicrous.

I have such a right. My friends and most people that I know have that right, too. It's the right guaranteed to us by the Second Amendment. But that right, like all of the others, is not absolute. It was written to ensure the right of the individual citizen to stand up with other members of his community against any threat to himself or that community, and it's generally accepted that it was meant as a defense against the tyranny of either a foreign government or our own if if becomes abusive, but I don't think that anyone would disagree that it was also meant to protect the right of the citizen to protect himself and his property from the garden-variety violent criminals that were as much a problem in the 1700's as they are today. I cannot imagine our Founding Fathers all agreeing that King George's troops should have an equal right to use firearms to oppress the citizens of the newly-created "America", and neither can I imagine them saying that the highwaymen and other career criminals who preyed on the traveler, the homeowner, or the shopkeeper in that day were entitled to that consideration.

To they contrary, I personally hold that such criminals, by their own actions, set themselves apart from the citizenry at large and become a separate and distinct class. They are not us any more. They are the enemy of every law-abiding American, just as King George's troops once were. As such, certain rights and privileges that belong to the law-abiding American citizen no longer apply to them. We as a nation decided long ago that it wasn't in this nation's interest to let felons vote or own dangerous weapons, as these people have proven that they cannot be trusted and they lack the honor, integrity and/or judgment to do the right thing. Now in recent years, the Democrats have chosen to return to many felons the right to vote, since that sort of person overwhelmingly votes Democrat, but there aren't many of us who want to give felons the right to own firearms, particularly felons who are felons because they've misused firearms in the past. As far as I know, practically the only people who argue for the right of the convicted felon to be able to own firearms are convicted felons themselves, and the odd-ball Libertarian fringe nutters, most of whom also think that Ron Paul is Presidential material.

But I don't support convicted felons owning guns. I don't see them as my comrades-in-arms, standing ready to oppose any threat from invasion or civil unrest when Obama's policies crash our economy and curtail our liberties, nor do I see them as members of my local Neighborhood Watch. (Yeah, I really want to ask the local career burglar to watch my house when I go on vacation...) I actually feel better knowing that said burglar and the local drug dealer can be tossed right back into prison just for being caught with a gun in their possession. To me, it's another tool for getting unrepentant scumbags off of our streets, and as I'm 100% anti-scumbag, I'm good with that.

So I support keeping criminals disarmed by law, and jailing those who decide to arm themselves in defiance of the law. To that end, I'm glad to see Cox and McCamy off our streets, and hope to someday see every other Cox or McCamy clone out there scooped up and jailed as well. Criminals who are in prison for ten years following a "felon in possession" hit can't murder my friends, rob my favorite stores, carjack my mother, sell drugs to my neighbor's kids, or break into my house. And criminals who go around unarmed because they fear going to prison for one of those ten-year hits are much less of a threat to the community and much less likely to injure or kill someone that I care about.

So let's keep those prosecutions rolling, in Alaska and in the rest of the country as well. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms belongs to every law-abiding American, and I will aggressively defend the right of every law-abiding American to do just that, but those who use guns to prey on law-abiding Americans got nothing coming as far as I'm concerned. They chose to forfeit that right and they have no one to blame but themselves.

Military votes rejected, felon votes courted in Virginia

In Fairfax, Virginia, the county Registrar is rejecting absentee ballots sent in from military members abroad, in effect, disenfranchising many of our most patriotic, self-sacrificing citizens...the ones who truly earned the right to vote.

With the back of the same hand, Fairfax County is also registering inmates in the county jail to vote and Virginia has restored the right to vote to almost six thousand convicted felons, inviting each of them to step up and have a say in what sort of government we'll have and what type of laws that we'll live under. ("Hey, you guys want drug-dealing decriminalized and more gun-control laws that will keep your victims from shooting you? Just come on out and vote for Obama!")

Not only is this a travesty on multiple levels, but Virginia is one of the crucial battleground states that may determine who becomes our next president.

If it comes right down to it, who would you rather have making that choice: Our honorable soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who have put their lives on the line for this country, or a bunch of crack dealers, murderers, rapists and child molesters?

Keep in mind that the military vote is always overwhelmingly Republican and the convicted felon vote is even more heavily weighted towards the Democrats, and you can see how important this issue is in one of the few undecided states in our nation.

Credit to apackof2 for the tip.

Felons ape on to Supreme Court gun case ruling. Democrat hypocrisy exposed again.

Well that didn't take long. According to this article in the Las Vegas Sun, we now have convicted felons--the literal scum of the earth and a cancer on our nation--suing to overturn the prohibitions that prevent them from possessing guns.

Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr. faces charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning guns after police found seven pistols, three shotguns and five rifles at his home south of Pittsburgh.

As a defense, Barton and several other defendants in federal gun cases argue that last month's Supreme Court ruling allows them to keep loaded handguns at home for self-defense.

"Felons, such as Barton, have the need and the right to protect themselves and their families by keeping firearms in their home," says David Chontos, Barton's court-appointed lawyer.

Sorry, but I'm not going to worry because murderers, rapists, burglars, carjackers, armed robbers, child molesters and drug dealers aren't allowed to own guns. I don't mind that they go to prison for possessing one because the rest of us are better off every time someone with that sort of moral defect gets taken off the streets for any reason, and I suspect that bans on them possessing guns keeps at least some of them from being able to shoot or threaten other citizens and putting our police officers at risk. It's long been known that when you embark on a course of action that entails victimizing other people or society, you give up many things, including the right to own guns and the right to vote.

Now Democrats, predictably, have fought to restore voting rights to felons because they know that lazy people with no ethical code or functioning moral compass are almost guaranteed to prefer the Democrats' platform of wealth redistribution over one of self-reliance and personal responsibility. I've long said that an armed robber is just a Democrat in a hurry, and if it weren't for felons voting, we'd never see the likes of Marion Barry voted back into office. Felons vote Dem over 90% of the time, per surveys of felons, and Dems fight to give them the vote, figuring that it's better to be elected by scum than to be defeated because the majority of honest, hard-working people wanted someone else.

But what I'm noticing here is that as much as Dems want to see felons' right to vote restored, they're suddenly silent as church mice when it comes to restoring felons' gun rights. Granted many Dems want us all disarmed--it's easier to control us that way--but I have to ask any felon who might be reading this how he or she feels about a party that claims to support you and wants your vote, but won't stand up for you on the gun issue?

Now if the Dems did support guns for felons, I'd slam them for that too, but I'm not the one pandering to the felons for votes and then leaving them hanging on every other issue. Of course as long as the criminal class has publicity-seeking, law-and-order-hating defense attornies, they'll always have paid advocates...at least as long as there's money in the public defender pot.

Chontos and other criminal defense lawyers say the high court's decision means federal laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of people convicted of felonies and crimes of domestic violence are unconstitutional as long as the weapons are needed for self-defense.

"The line I'm proposing, at the home, is entirely consistent" with the Supreme Court ruling, said Chontos, a lawyer in Turtle Creek, Pa.

Doesn't it figure?

People on both sides of the gun control issue say they expect numerous attacks against local, state and federal laws based on the high court's 5-4 ruling that struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia also suggested, however, that many gun control measures could remain in place.

Denis Henigan, vice president for law and policy at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said Scalia essentially was reassuring people that the laws keeping guns from felons and people with mental illness and out of government buildings and schools would withstand challenges. But Henigan said he is not surprised by felons pressing for gun-ownership rights.

"The court has cast us into uncharted waters here. There is no question about that," Henigan said.

"There is now uncertainty where there was none before," he said. "Gun laws were routinely upheld and they were considered policy issues to be decided by legislatures."

Cities' outright bans on handguns probably are the most vulnerable laws following the Supreme Court ruling.

"I think there's a very substantial chance that these kinds of ordinances will be struck down because they are aimed at people who have shown no reason to be viewed as untrustworthy," said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has written about gun rights.

And this I'm ecstatic about. Laws that bar all people from owning guns--or at least laws which bar decent, law-abiding people who have no criminal records or history of mental illness, are abhorrent to our Constitution and the American way of life. All men and women in this country are free and unless they voluntarily give that freedom up by engaging in criminal activity against the rest of us and declaring themselves unfit, then they should be able to own and use firearms for their own needs, just as our founding fathers had intended and as the Supreme Court just affirmed that they have a right to to.

But that stops when it comes to criminals, as far as I'm concerned. And I'm far from the only one to share that opinion.

Eugene Volokh and some gun rights proponents said people convicted of crimes are less likely to succeed in their challenges.

"Many felons may need self defense more than you and I, but the government has extra justification for limiting that right because they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy," Volokh said.

And that I agree with. I don't want the convicted meth cook or pot distributor living down the street to have guns. Their alleged need for self-defense (against who? subsequent police raids?) is secondary to mine and that of my fellow law-abiding neighbors. But the fight's far from over now that the Supreme Court has ruled in Heller. In fact, it looks to be just starting.

The Supreme Court has a case on its calendar for the fall that could indicate whether the justices are inclined to expand their ruling.

In United States v. Hayes, the government is asking the court to reinstate a conviction for possession of a gun for someone previously convicted of a domestic violence crime. In 1994, Randy Hayes received a year of probation after pleading guilty to beating his wife.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction because the West Virginia law Hayes violated does not specifically deal with domestic violence crimes. The question for the high court, then, is a technical one: whether the law has to include domestic violence to be used in the future to prevent someone from owning guns?

Advocates on both sides of the gun control debate will be watching closely to see whether the court's D.C. decision is relevant to the Hayes case and, if so, how.

Well Randy Hayes can go to hell in flames, too. I'll never side with or support a woman-hitting loser and I have no problem with keeping guns out of hands like that. Now I know that this is where a bunch of rabid gun nutters and disgruntled divorced guys will start screaming that women fake these charges just to screw guys over and get their guns taken away, but we're not seeing proof of that in Hayes' case, and in fact he pled guilty. He admitted beating a woman. So I don't want to hear jack about that punk and his inability to own a gun. Guns are for real men, real men are defined by integrity and honor, and Randy Hayes and the vast majority of convicted felons are forever excluded from that group by their own actions.

And damn Barton and Hayes and their scumbag lawyers for actually putting me on the same side of a gun-rights debate as those un-American gun grabbers in Sarah Brady's organization.

I say we give Maryland back to England

Wow. Maryland's legislature is just going to town now that they've got a Democratic majority and a new Democratic governor. They're working full bore to wipe out any semblance of American values from that state. As a result, I'm proposing that we give Maryland back to England, since they clearly don't seem to appreciate this country or have any desire to want to be like the rest of us. Sadly, the Dems now running that state are trying to pass a bunch of new laws that will harm law-abiding Americans there while basically giving the state over to a combination of illegal aliens and felons, most of whom are expected to return the favor by voting Dem in the subsequent elections. Here's just a few examples of the sort of laws that I'm talking about:

Anti-gun legislation.

Just this year, the Maryland Legislature is advancing several bills that will remove Montgomery County from under the state's firearms preemption laws and allow that county to impose stricter gun controls than the rest of the state. They also want to put a 10% tax on certain types of firearms and they are also working on a so-called "assault weapons ban" which will deny law-abiding Maryland residents the right to purchase most semi-automatic firearms and magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. None of these laws do a thing to deter or punish criminals, but they come down hard on the people who actually obey the laws.

Drivers' licenses for illegal aliens.

Maryland is one of just seven states that does not require people to prove citizenship before giving them a driver's license. The federal government's "Real ID Act" requires states to demand such proof because driver's licenses are used to open bank accounts, vote, board airliners, and other things that both terrorists and run-of-the-mill illegal aliens have no business doing. However

If Maryland does not comply with the act, state driver's licenses would no longer be accepted identification for entrance into federal buildings or travel on airplanes.

Barring illegal aliens from obtaining driver's licenses became an even bigger issue for many Maryland lawmakers after an Iraq war veteran was killed in a car accident involving an illegal alien in Howard County on Thanksgiving.

Police arrested Eduardo Raul Morales-Soriano, 25, an illegal alien from Mexico, and charged him with drunken driving and two counts each of vehicular homicide and manslaughter while intoxicated in the crash that killed Cpl. Brian Mathews of Columbia, Md. But the illegal alien advocacy group Casa de Maryland still demands that the legislature treat illegals the same as citizens and people who have a lawful right to be in our country, and that it would make many (illegal) immigrants feel like second-class people to deny them the full rights and benefits that citizens and legal immigrants enjoy.

At least one person gets it though. "I think it's a terrible problem that we have: People who are more concerned about how the illegal aliens feel than the safety of Maryland residents," said Sen. Janet Greenip, Anne Arundel County Republican.

Amen! But the Dems also know that if illegals can get driver's licenses, they can also register vote courtesy of that stupid Motor Voter law that the Clinton era Dems passed. There are no checks in place to prevent it and both the Dems and the illegals know it.


In-state tuition for illegals.

Not content with just giving illegals the documents that they need to blend in with those of us who actually belong here, the Maryland legislature also thinks that they should get a break on college tuition for themselves and their kids. If an actual American moves to Maryland, they won't be eligible for in-state tuition rates for at least a year, but the MD legislature, kow-towing again to Casa de Maryland and the rest of the illegal alien lobby, thinks that illegals deserve this break so that they can compete for slots in Maryland's colleges and universities with citizens and legal immigrants who want them and who actually have a right to them. It's bad enough that the legislature would allow illegals to attend those schools at all, but giving them tuition preferences that are reserved for legitimate residents and which are denied to many actual citizens? Come on! One Maryland legislator who opposes it says it will inevitably put an added financial strain on schools, drive up tuition costs and reduce the number of available slots at public colleges for legal residents, but the rest of the legislature just wants that Hispanic vote so they're going ahead with it anyway.


Let felons vote!

As if Maryland hasn't gone far enough in it's efforts to curtail the rights of law-abiding citizens and give extravagant benefits to illegals, now it wants to further dilute the voting power of the decent people by removing the bar that our forefathers put on felons and allowing them to vote. This means that criminals will get a say on legislation that sets penalties on the crimes that they have already been convicted of committing at least once, and it gives them the chance to try to vote out of office prosecutors and legislators who are tough on crime and it also allows them to go after the sheriffs who run the jails that they've done time in. It also sets up a situation where candidates for office in high-crime areas will be tempted to pander to convicted criminals and promise to pass legislation that lessens or eliminates the penalties for some crimes in exchange for the votes of the criminals. One only has to look to Washington DC and see what happened there as convicted felon Marion Barry actively sought out the votes of other convicted felons in Ward 8 and subsequently won a seat in the City Council. Is that what Maryland's legislative majority wants? Or are they just looking at studies that reflect the fact that felons overwhelmingly vote Democrat? I realize that if Florida's felons had been allowed to cast the deciding votes, AL Gore would have been elected instead of George W. Bush, and the Democrats realize it too, which is why they push so hard to give felons the vote nationwide. They know that their platform doesn't appeal to the majority of hard-working honest citizens, so rather than change it and give the good people what the good people want, they'd rather open up the voting pool to criminals and illegal aliens and ride their votes into power, screwing everyone else.

How about it, England? You want 'em back? We'll trade you. Give us a few thousand honest conservative citizens (if you've got that many left) and we'll give you Maryland on the condition that you promptly tow it away. Act quick and we'll throw in Massachusetts as a bonus. It's not like that state does America any good so why the heck not?

Michigan represented by felons?

Some states don't even let violent felons vote after they get out of prison. But voters in Highland Park, Michigan elect them to the state legislature according to the Detroit Free Press.

They have a State Representative by the name of Bert Johnson, who just made the news after a Free Press reporter caught him driving back and forth to the Capitol on a suspended driver's license in a car with expired license plates.

At 33, Johnson's license has been suspended for most of the 18 years he's been old enough to drive, according to Secretary of State records.

At 16, he received his first ticket less than a month after he got his license. Since then, he's been cited for moving violations -- mostly speeding -- at least 17 more times and had his license suspended more than two dozen times.

Secretary of State spokeswoman Kelly Chesney said the records indicate Johnson has never been off driving probation and appears to have possessed a valid operator license for only about three months since he got his license in 1989.

As to the expired license plates:

Johnson said he was not aware the license plate on the vehicle he had been driving to the Capitol, a 2001 Jaguar, was invalid. Secretary of State records show its registration expired Feb. 21 when a renewal check was returned for insufficient funds.

Johnson said he is the primary owner of the Jaguar, although it is registered in the name of a woman at the same Highland Park address as him. Johnson said the registration will be paid.

We all know what he's doing here, right? He can't get car insurance with his driving record, so he buys himself a Jaguar but he puts it in someone else's name so that it can get insured based on her driving record, not his.

The ironic part: Johnson is a member of the House Insurance Committee, which, among other things, oversees the regulation of auto insurance. Yep, he gets to make the very auto insurance laws that he's avoiding by registering his car in someone else's name.

Folks, what we have here is a punk, plain and simple. He doesn't respect the law and he's not going to abide by it unless he knows that everyone's watching him. He may be a legislator now, but that just makes him a punk in a suit.

But what's even worse is his criminal record. It turns out that he's also a violent felon. In 1994, he was convicted of burglary and armed robbery. That's right, this punk broke into people's houses and took people's property after threatening them with a gun. And this was all known to the voters before election day, and they just shrugged and voted for him because he was running as the Democrat in an area that is majority Democrat. But the voters still bear some responsibility here, as does the Democratic Party of Michigan for letting this guy run and for not finding another non-felon who wasn't a punk to run against him. To their credit, the Republicans tried to prevent him from taking his seat based on his criminal past and a provision in the State Constitution that bars office holders who have committed a breach of the public trust (Armed robbery sure counts) but the Democrats in the legislature refused to act and instead supported Johnson, and when the Dems took control of the State Legislature they quashed all efforts to remove him. Hey, what's a few violent felonies and a lifetime record of contempt for the laws of society if you're willing to sit in the state capitol and vote like a good Democrat, right?

This is beyond appalling, and every Democrat in that state should be ashamed, starting with Governor Granholm and the House leadership that is currently turning a blind eye to his current bad behavior and extending all the way down to every crackhead and welfare recipient in Highland Park who cast a vote for Johnson on election day.