09 November 2007

Could Hillary's Ohio Endorsement Mean Anti-Gun Lt. Gov. Moves Up To The Big Office?

UPDATE: 1 pm, Saturday, Nov. 10 -- This morning's Columbus Dispatch confirmed what I speculated on last evening in this post. Hillary Clinton needs Ohio to win. Strickland can probably deliver the state if he is the VP on her presidential ticket. My post from Friday evening is below. Here is the Dispatch's story, published Saturday morning. Cleveland's Plain Dealer newspaper looks at Ohio's influence on the entire election, and the Strickland factor, here. Strickland has since stated he is not interested in the VP post, but that could change if the national party needs Ohio, and if strategists think he can deliver.

The Buckeye State just got a wake up call. Ted Strickland, overwhelming winner in Ohio's gubernatorial elections a year ago, today endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. Why does anyone across the nation care about a Midwest governor's endorsement? And why should Ohioans care, especially Ohio firearms owners?

This event creates a potential situation every Ohio firearms owner should fear. Overall, I think Strickland is not a bad governor. He ran with a generally pro-gun message. I don't agree with all his policies, but after a year he's created little mischief. But his choice for lieutenant governor early in the campaign was another thing entirely. There were firearms owners who were out there beating the drum for Strickland at rallies, at gun shows, and elsewhere, totally ignoring the baggage that came with his running mate, Lee Fisher. Here's the rub: Ohio Lt. Governor Lee Fisher is about as anti-gun as Ted Kennedy. He was an active member of the board of directors of Handgun Control Inc. in the 1990s-- yes, HCI. You know them better now as the Brady Campaign (Author's Note: When you click on the link to Fisher's official State of Ohio bio, there is NO mention of his HCI affiliation). This organization may sound softer than it used to, but changing a name does not hide this organization's true mission.

Here is the scenario. Both political parties desperately need Ohio to win. Earlier in this presidential season, the thinking was that John Edwards might tap Strickland as his VP for the ticket. As many people know Ohio has been a "battleground state" since the Civil War -- BEFORE we were calling swing states by that name. Strickland is well-liked in Washington and, as a former member of Congress, is respected among national democrat leaders. With Strickland's endorsement of Mrs. Bill Clinton, the democrats today stand an even better chance of taking Ohio and capturing the White House. A democrat majority in both the U.S. House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate, with anti-gun leadership on both sides, combined with an anti-gun commander in chief, spells more than just a little trouble for the nation's firearms owners.

For Ohio, it would be a double-whammy. If Strickland runs as Hillary's vice president, and is elected, Lee Fisher -- former board member of Handgun Control Inc. -- becomes Ohio's chief executive. Even with a slim republican majority that leans mostly pro-gun, the Ohio General Assembly will surely be bombarded with one anti-gun bill after another.

I am not the only person who mentioned this disturbing scenario to many people in the run-up to the Ohio gubernatial election last year. Many agreed. Many others said it was so much pie-in-the-sky fiction. I have been around far too many years watching the goings on in Buckeye politics and at the Ohio Statehouse not to connect some dots and recognize the implications. In the past few months, Strickland has been the subject of a lot of left-leaning political blogs in Ohio and the Midwest, most suggesting that Edwards would tap Strickland to be his VP. But Strickland today announced where his loyalties lie -- and perhaps we witnessed where his future lies, as well.

When asked about such a situation (Strickland being appointed to a national post if the democrats took the White House in 2008, and Fisher moving up to the governor's post) during a "meet the candidates" event sponsored by the U.S. Sportsmans Alliance prior to his 2006 election, Strickland emphatically told supporters and those who were observing his campaign NOT to worry about Lee Fisher. Strickland assured the crowd that HE would be Ohio's governor.

Yes, but for how long?


cdw said...

oh dear god I hope not!!! i guess i remember him being involved with hci...didn't they have a laundry list of things they expected to get done; i mean weren't they so confident about their power that they didn't hide what they were doing andplanned to achieve?

Mike in Lancaster said...

You were right. Front page Saturday Dispatch. Strickland in line to be running mate for Clinton

Brent Greer said...

You are correct that HCI's agenda was deep. I looked it up and found a few of the things they thought could be accomplished from 1993 to 1994. They had a 1-year plan and 5-year plan. Brainstorming sessions were to be held at the White House. Keep in mind this is just before the republicans took over Congress in 1994, largely a result of the national assault weapon ban. Here is the list:

A)Ban of all clips holding over 6 bullets.

B)Ban on all semiautos which can fire more than 6 bullets without reloading.

C)Ban on possession of parts.

D)Ban on all pump shotguns capable of being converted to over 5 shots without reloading.

E)Banning of all machine guns, destructive devices, short shot guns/rifles, assault weapons, Saturday Night Specials and Non- Sporting ammunition.

F)Arsenal licensing for possession of multiple guns and large amounts of ammunition.

G)Elimination of the Department of Civilian Marksmanship.

H)Ban on possession of a firearm within a home located within 1000 feet of a schoolyard.

I)Ban on all realistic replicas/toy guns or non-firearms capable of being rendered realistic.

J)The right of victims of gun violence to sue manufacturers and dealers to be affirmed and perhaps, aided with money from government programs.

K)Taxes on ammo, dealers licenses and guns to offset the medical costs to society.

L)The eventual ban of all semi-automatics regardless of when made or what caliber.


The memo describes subjects discussed during a "brain storming" session conducted after the formal meeting. The focus of this session was to guide gun control initiatives over the next five years. The document states that these subjects may not be politically feasible ideas for 1994, but the members are confident that with continued pressure they can achieve most if not all of these goals within the next five years. These goals are summarized below:


1) National licensing of all handgun purchases.

2) License for rifle and shotguns. Strict licensing should be mandatory for all firearms, whether handguns or not.

3) State licenses for ownership of firearms. It is reasonable to require that all individual must prove that they require a firearm.

4) Reduction of the number of guns to require an arsenal license. The suggestion is that the number be reduced to possession of greater than 5 guns and 250 rounds of ammunition.

5) Arsenal license fees. It is reasonable to require an annual fee of at least $300.00, with a cap of $1,000.00.

6) Limits on arsenal licensing. No license permitted in counties with populations in excess of 200,000.

7) Requirement of Federally Approved storage safe for all guns.

8) Inspection licensing of all safes. This would be a good revenue source, and would be conducted yearly.


9) Ban on manufacturing in counties with a population of more than 200,000.

10) Ban on all military style firearms. This will be based on a "point system" and hopefully can be expanded to include high powered air guns and paint ball weapons.

11) Banning of any machine gun parts or parts which can be used in a machine gun.

12) Banning the carrying of a firearm anywhere but home or target range. There should be a federal mandate to the states regulating the carrying of firearms.

13) Banning replacement parts.

14) Elimination of the Curio relic list. A gun is a gun.

15) Control of ammunition belonging to certain surplus firearms.

16) Eventual ban on handgun possession. We think that within 5 years we can enact a total ban on possession at the federal level.

17) Banning of any ammunition that fits military guns (post 1945).


18) Banning of any quantity of smokeless powder or black powder which would constitute more than the equivalent of 100 rounds of ammunition.

19) Ban on the possession of explosive powders of more than 1 kilogram at any one time.

20) Banning of high powered ammo and wounding ammo.

21) A national license for ammunition.

22) Banning or strict licensing of all re-loading components.

23) National registration of ammunition or ammo buyers.

24) Requirement of special storage safe for ammunition and licensing.