Pete Rose and the Second Amendment

4/15/2013

The Baseball Writers' Association of America's rule 3E states clearly, "Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate." In 1989 without admitting guilt, he agreed to a lifetime ban from baseball stemming from allegations that he bet on baseball games, therefore making him ineligible to be on the Hall of Fame ballot (note: he later admitted in 2004 that he did in fact bet on baseball games in which he managed).

Even though Pete Rose is baseball's all-time hits leader, I am of the opinion that - based on current rules - he should not be in the Hall of Fame. Why? Because of Rule 3E. If you want Pete to be in the Hall of Fame, the eligibility rules must be amended or he must be removed from baseball's ineligibility list.

Most people who want Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame let their emotions overlook rule 3E. The same can be said for people who want to limit, water-down or overlook the second amendment.

The Second Amendment to our Constitution, which is one of 10 rights given to the citizens to protect us from a tyrannical government states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (infringed means: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another).

The United States Constitution confers to its citizenry a right to have guns. Taking it one step further, we have a right to protect ourselves and our families.

The President and Congress, when elected to office, take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution - the whole Constitution. In effect, they are taking an oath that they will protect and defend "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." Any removal, watering down or overlooking of this inherent right means that these federal officials are breaking their oaths of office.

The gun control fight in the U.S. on the federal level is a fight for freedom. Once the arms are taken away from the citizens, then nothing stops the government from taking other freedoms away, such as the right to free speech, the among others. Let me be clear - the government looks to control us. Do not allow yourselves to fall into the emotional trap of giving away your rights because of some horrific tragedy. Be careful what you ask for or want.

The Constitution, through its amendment process, allows for changes. If you believe in gun control, amend the Constitution. If you believe that Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame, then fight to have rule 3E amended.

Yes, it's that black and white.

Believe - in the Constitution and your right to defend yourself

Act - by doing your homework about the founding of this nation in order to come up with your own conclusions

Serve - each other by having honest, open and non confrontational discussions about the second amendment

1 Comment

William heino Sr.

7/24/2021 11:38:47 am

In light of the recent ruling (6/3/21 ) by Federal judge Roger Benitez overturning a California firearms ban on assault weapons where he ruled it violates the Constitutional right to bear arms, his words, referring to the Second Amendment, I have a suggestion. In my thesis regarding the Second Amendment I think it will prove his ruling right to bear arms" has everything to do with a "militia" and nothing to do with a "person" or individual, which the following will suggest..

Justice Amy Coney Barrett Second Amendment dilemma

In some 225 years neither law professors, academic scholars, teachers, students, lawyers or congressional legislators after much debate have not been able to satisfactorily explain or demonstrate the Framers intended purpose of Second Amendment of the Constitution. I had taken up that challenge allowing Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s dilemma to understand the true intent of the Second Amendment.

I will relate further by demonstration, the intent of the Framers, my understanding using the associated wording to explain. The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Militia, a body of citizens organized for military service.

If, as some may argue, the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms, the only way to describe ones right as a private individual is not as a “militia” but as a “person.” (The individual personality of a human being: self)

The 4th Amendment reminds us, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons….”

The Article of Confederation lists eleven (11) references to“person/s.” The Constitution lists “person” or “persons” 49 times to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a constitutional legal standing as to a “person” his or her constitutional duty and rights, what he or she can do or not do.

It’s not enough to just say “person/s” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times, but to see it for yourself (forgo listing), and the realization was for the concern envisioned by the Framers that every person be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these rights were to be applied to that “person.”

Whereas, in the Second Amendment any reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there a reason? Which leaves the obvious question, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey the same legal standard in defining an individual “persons” right to bear arms as a person?

Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissent in Barr v Kanter (2019) Second Amendment argument acquiesced to 42 references to “person/s, of which 13 characterize either a gun or firearm. Her Second Amendment, “textualism” approach having zero reference to “person/s. Justice Barrett’s view only recognizes “person/s” in Barr, as well in her many other 7th circuit rulings. It is her refusal to acknowledge, recognize or connect the U.S. Constitution benchmark legislative interpretive precept language of “person/s,” mandated in our Constitution 49 times, to the Second Amendment.

Leaving Supreme Court Justice Barrett’s judgment in question.

In the entire U.S. Constitution “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references there is no mention of “person” or “persons.” One reference to “people” in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons in describing militia.

Now comes the word “shall” mentioned in the Constitution 100 times. SHALL; ought to, must ..

And interestingly, the word “shall” appears in the Second Amendment. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and shall not be infringed.”

“[S]hall not be infringed.” Adding another word “infringed” to clarify any misunderstanding as to the intent of the Second Amendment. Infringe. To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another;

The condition “Infringe” has put a stop as to any counter thoughts regarding the Second Amendment, as you shall not infringe or encroach on beliefs other to what is evident as to the subject “Militia.”

Finally, clarifying “..the right of the people to keep and bear arms…
People. Human beings making up a gro

Pete Rose and the Second Amendment

Leave a Reply.

Archives

Categories