New U.T. Policy Strips Student Athletes' 2nd Amendment Right

[TacticaLogic]

[SomeGuy]

Does this apply to ALL UT schools, or just UTK? Regardless, if I was still a student on the campus I graduated from - a UT school, I would love to try out for a sports team then make my position clear, then fight this. Certainly this would be considered some form of discrimination?

[redbarron06]

Should this not be challenged under the TN Constitution. The state, not the school, is by law the authority in TN on gun ownership.

[TacticaLogic]

I do not see how this could not be challenged and easily defeated... It is the equivalent to the school saying that I can not pray to my God, or that I may not voice an opinion. To prohibit my 2nd Amendment rights is just as unconstitutional as prohibiting my 1st Amendment rights.

Mike

[johnharris]

Could and should be challenged but by who? Which student is going to risk a college career on such a claim?

[C. Richard Archie]

[SomeGuy]

John, I don't know lawsuits all that well; in cases such as this, is there no way for a law/policy written by some mid-level paper-pusher to be challenged before someone has taken damages?

[ProguninTN]

[RobertNashville]

I agree this is a lousy (to say the least) rule UT is imposing but I'm not sure how this can be challenged? As an organization, can't UT make any rules it wants for "who" is eligible to be a member of one of their sports teams?

Owning a firearm is a right; playing UT basketball (or whatever) is a "privilege" is it not? And being a privilege; can't the university establish any rules it likes (no matter how "bad" they might be)?

For example, student athletes have a First Amendment right to "free speech" but couldn't UT say "if you talk to anyone outside of the basketball program about the plays in our basketball play book you'll immediately be removed from the team"?

Maybe the above isn't a good analogy but am I making sense here?

[ProguninTN]

[RobertNashville]

Don't misunderstand; I don't like this rule any better than you do.

But I do see a distinction here in that being a student at UT and/or being a student athlete at UT is not something that anyone is required to do...students/athletes make their own, voluntary decision to attend and/or be part of the sports program. As such, it seems to me that as a legal entity, the school has broad latitude in the rules they make and that these students can either agree to abide by them or leave the institution.

Maybe I'm off base here...I don't know but I don't see it as being much different than a business posting "no firearms"...I DO understand that rule is VERY BROAD in extending beyond the campus but I'm not sure if that would necessarily make the rule "unconstitutional" since, again, no one is required to attend UT.

[TacticaLogic]

[C. Richard Archie]

TacticaLogic,

You are dead on here.

I concede that the University has the power to ban possession regardless of permit status on their property, but none whatsoever regarding the ownership or possession off campus. If the State truly operates under the Constitution, only the Legislature has the power to restrict the wearing of arms, and that with a view to prevent crime only, if in fact we are to have a literal interpretation of Article 1 Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution. I see nothing in that clause that exempts UT from Legislative restraint, nor empowers it to overbear State authority.

TCA39-17-1314 says that the State preempts all other known entities with regard to regulations regarding arms. From that Code section:
"no city, county, or metropolitan government shall occupy any part of the field of regulation of the transfer, ownership, possession or transportation of firearms, ammunition or components of firearms or combinations thereof; provided, that this section shall be prospective only and shall not affect the validity of any ordinance or resolution lawfully enacted before April 8, 1986."

One of two things has precedent there, (1) the Legislature never considered that the AD would assume to control Constitutional issues, and therefor did not include either him or UT proper in the list of prohibited entities that might usurp the Legislatures power, (2) ruling was not in effect prior to April 8, 1986, so even if somehow UT has managed to worm itself into a position that is co-equal with the Legislature, it's latest ruling is preempted by the State due to time constraints in 39-17-1314.

[TacticaLogic]

[SomeGuy]

[David Lewis]

[RobertNashville]

[C. Richard Archie]

[RobertNashville]

[RobertNashville]