UT bans gun ownership of all student athletes.

[Almond27]

One other side note, there is a certain Governorial candidate by the name of Haslam that has a very strong enfluence on the goings on On Rocky Top. This gentleman needs our votes and I would encourage each and every one of us to contact his campaign and express our anger at this decision. <!-- / message --> <!-- sig -->

Bill Haslam would NEVER get my vote I'd rather not vote at all than vote for his buying his way into office campaign.

[mikegideon]

My suspicion is that Mr. Hamilton has made a knee-jerk reaction

A gun ban is always a knee-jerk reaction. Ban thugs.

[Worriedman]

Is AD Hamilton paid with tax dollars? If so, he should be charged with Official Oppression.

TCA 39-16-403. Official oppression. —

(a) A public servant acting under color of office or employment commits an offense who:

(1) Intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, stop, frisk, halt, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment or lien when the public servant knows the conduct is unlawful; or

(2) Intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity, when the public servant knows the conduct is unlawful.

( For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of office or employment if the public servant acts, or purports to act, in an official capacity or takes advantage of the actual or purported capacity.

© An offense under this section is a Class E felony.

(d) Charges for official oppression may be brought only by indictment, presentment or criminal information; provided, that nothing in this section shall deny a person from pursuing other criminal charges by affidavit of complaint.

[cybernorris]

Wonder if they're going to take the long rifle away from the cheerleader who dresses up as Davy Crocket? Or maybe he killed that bear with a walking stick.

[bubbiesdad]

As much as it stinks, I don't see any rights being violated here.

You don't have a right to play football. If you wanna play, you have to follow their rules. If that means no drinking, no nookie, or in this case, no guns.(all of which are legal)

If they want to own guns, then they'll just have to make the decision to quit the sport to which they have no rights to play.

It would only be wrong if the students had a right to play...

Problem here is that they can be caught using ILLEGAL drugs multiple times before being kicked off the team.

WBIR.com | Knoxville, TN | UT Athletics moves from 4-strikes drug policy to 3

[GLOCKMEISTER]

well ****, this is going to effect recruitment too... He needs to be fired, this is insane.

[Oh Shoot]

Is AD Hamilton paid with tax dollars? If so, he should be charged with Official Oppression....

It has long been claimed that all football and basketball salaries (don't know about other "lesser" sports) are paid for from athletic dept. funds, not the public coffer.

But it was shown at least in the past that their bennies (retirement, group insurance, whatever) come out of the same pool as other university employees.

Don't know about the AD and his staff, though.

- OS

[Worriedman]

As much as it stinks, I don't see any rights being violated here.

You don't have a right to play football. If you wanna play, you have to follow their rules. If that means no drinking, no nookie, or in this case, no guns.(all of which are legal)

If they want to own guns, then they'll just have to make the decision to quit the sport to which they have no rights to play.

It would only be wrong if the students had a right to play...

College athletics are amateur in nature, it is not a "contract", as they can not be "paid". All students have to pay for the classes they take. Student athletes simply swap their skill and labor for the cash they would otherwise have to pony up. If in fact UT can propose and enforce this edict for it's players, they can do it for all students.

It is wrong because some of them are U.S. Citizens. The school can restrict possession ON CAMPUS, but to attempt to do the same off their grounds is in fact, a violation of those Citizen's Rights, as I think will be shown in the near future.

[strickj]

College athletics are amateur in nature, it is not a "contract", as they can not be "paid". All students have to pay for the classes they take. Student athletes simply swap their skill and labor for the cash they would otherwise have to pony up. If in fact UT can propose and enforce this edict for it's players, they can do it for all students.

It is wrong because some of them are U.S. Citizens. The school can restrict possession ON CAMPUS, but to attempt to do the same off their grounds is in fact, a violation of those Citizen's Rights, as I think will be shown in the near future.

They can do the same for all students, but universities don't even come close to holding the same standards for students and athletics.

Like I stated earlier, if a student chooses to play sports then they are held to a much higher standard and much stricter rules.

If they choose not to work out, they can be removed from the team(away from practice)

If they choose to drink, they can be removed from the team.

If they choose to bad mouth an opposing team, they can be removed from the team.

No one is forcibly removing their rights.

Remember, a schools athletic dept is a privilege and no one has any entitlements to that.

edit, don't get me wrong here, guys.

I don't agree with this rule one bit.

Just trying to explain how it is not a violation of their rights to bear arms...

Edited March 1, 2010 by strickj

[Guest redbarron06]

working, drinking and bad mouthing the other team is not covered in the constitution.

This is without a doubt and you can not arguee that the right to keep and bear arms is being "infringed".

To add according to the TN constitution and TN law it is the legislature that reserves the power to decide who will and will not have the ability to own a gun. If they qualify under the state law then the university can not tell them that they can not own a gun in thier own house. Similure cases involving landlords and tennets have already gone the way of 2A. This will be no different.

[strickj]

working, drinking and bad mouthing the other team is not covered in the constitution.

This is without a doubt and you can not arguee that the right to keep and bear arms is being "infringed".

To add according to the TN constitution and TN law it is the legislature that reserves the power to decide who will and will not have the ability to own a gun. If they qualify under the state law then the university can not tell them that they can not own a gun in thier own house. Similure cases involving landlords and tennets have already gone the way of 2A. This will be no different.

See the First.

The second is not being infringed here because the university is not the Government.

[Guest redbarron06]

See the First.

The second is not being infringed here because the university is not the Government.

niether is a landlord and the courts have already ruled against them.

[setsdw]

UT believes they are exempt from all law except their own(I speak from personal experience) They are huge, have lots of power, and very deep pockets. This would be just the thing for some lawyer to grab hold of a knock them off their high horse. I'm calling my congressman tomorrow. He's on the the financial committee for the boards of regents and has some pull.

[strickj]

niether is a landlord and the courts have already ruled against them.

Are you sure?

I have only seen where lawsuits had been filed against Government housing.

Problem here is, you do not have a right to play sports.

If you want to play, you must follow their rules.

If their rules say no guns, then you willingly give up your right in order to play.

If you chose to retain your rights, then you don't play.

There is no forcing anyone to do anything here.

It's no different then me letting you play football in my backyard because you own guns...

Edited March 1, 2010 by strickj

[Guest jackdm3]

Remember the beginning of "Last Boy Scout?"

[Guest redbarron06]

Are you sure?

I have only seen where lawsuits had been filed against Government housing.

Problem here is, you do not have a right to play sports.

If you want to play, you must follow their rules.

If their rules say no guns, then you willingly give up your right in order to play.

If you chose to retain your rights, then you don't play.

There is no forcing anyone to do anything here.

It's no different then me letting you play football in my backyard because you own guns...

There is no right to go to collage, so can they ban all students from owning guns as a qualification for admission. I dont have the right to live in Nashville either but they can not ban me from owning guns under TN law.

Correct me if I am wrong but UT is a State sponsored public school so they do represent the state government. Therefore they have to abide by the same law as the rest levels of governemnt in the state of TN.

[Worriedman]

See the First.

The second is not being infringed here because the university is not the Government.

It may not be the Government, but it is taxpayer funded, and as such has an obligation to not restrict Rights under TCA 39-16-403.

If in fact the University itself is responsible, then the whole consortium is guilty of Official Oppression, as they are taxpayer funded. The only chance they have of making this stick is if the Athletic Dept. can somehow be construed as Privately funded, otherwise for a taxpayer funded entity, then they are precluded by TN Law from abridging a Right, and now until the Legislature makes a law restricting the possession of weapons by athletes, the school has no power to deny them their Rights under the 2nd Amendment and Article 1, Section 26 of the TN Constitution.

But more importantly, if we the People of TN allow it, then shame on us.

[strickj]

There is no right to go to collage, so can they ban all students from owning guns as a qualification for admission. I dont have the right to live in Nashville either but they can not ban me from owning guns under TN law.

Correct me if I am wrong but UT is a State sponsored public school so they do represent the state government. Therefore they have to abide by the same law as the rest levels of governemnt in the state of TN.

The University is a privately owned school.

That's all I know.

[Guest mosinon]

I think Strickj is right, it sucks but it is a choice for the players to make. If you want to play sports you can't own guns.

A coach (or AD) can put all kinds of restrictions on you. No talking to the media (free speech), not writing or talking about what goes on (free press), make you travel (or prevent you from traveling) and so on. You'll argue: Hey the rights and all and they'll say "Hey don't play sports"

That stated, this is one of those stupid things that does nothing. I'm fairly sure Tyler Smith didn't jump in the car with weed and weapons thinking "aha, I'm good to go because UT doesn't have a weapons policy for athletes" No, he knew he was taking a chance.

[Guest redbarron06]

The University is a privately owned school.

That's all I know.

it my be privatly owned but it is run by the Tennesse govt according to its own web site

Governance

UT Knoxville is part of the University of Tennessee System, a statewide institution governed by a 26-member Board of Trustees appointed by the governor of Tennessee. Institutions of the UT system are UT Knoxville, UT Health Science Center in Memphis, UT Chattanooga, UT Martin, UT Space Institute in Tullahoma, UT Institute of Agriculture, and UT Institute for Public Service.

The University of Tennessee: About the University

So yes they do represent this govt. Therefore this policy violates the Constitution of Tennesse and state law of preemption by the legislature.

[strickj]

it my be privatly owned but it is run by the Tennesse govt according to its own web site

The University of Tennessee: About the University

So yes they do represent this govt. Therefore this policy violates the Constitution of Tennesse and state law of preemption by the legislature.

Board of Trusties will manage and supervise funds, etc...

Doesn't necessarily make them a Government org

[Guest redbarron06]

It makes them run by the gov. The govenor does not apoint leadership for private companies.

[setsdw]

Nevermind. UT is not a TBR school

Edited March 1, 2010 by setsdw
Did research that disproved my post

[Guest 270win]

Univ of Tennessee is a state school partly funded by taxpayer dollars in Tennessee. It is not a private school. Vanderbilt is a private school. This is complete garbage that my tax money is partly funding this complete disregard for the law.

[Oh Shoot]

... Similure cases involving landlords and tennets have already gone the way of 2A. This will be no different.

niether is a landlord and the courts have already ruled against them.

To my knowledge, only a local govt. owned housing project (I think in Cal.) was in a ruling that disallowed it to bar gun ownership for tenants.

I know of no instance where privately owned housing has had a "no gun" clause in lease found illegal. This topic comes up once in a while.

TN, like most states, holds contract law quite sacrosanct, and a lease between two private parties is about as simple a contract that exists.

If you know of any cases where a privately owned lease situation has been found to NOT be legal in disallowing guns, ESPECIALLY in TN, please cite it.

- OS