U. of Miami Football Coach Bans Gun Ownership

[ExAFO 0]

Does IIT still have the Kitten Flinging Team? IIRC, the best kitten flingers could fling a Manx Kitten a half mile. (which is impressive, since they don't have a tail with which you can get the rotational velocity)

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Is it illegal to carry a gun in Miami or do they have CCW? If it is legal i don't see how he can prohibit it. It is their personal business. Why tell people how to live?

In Florida, you can legally carry a handgun in your vehicle without special permission. To carry on your person you need a state license. Either way, what they do outside of the school in adherence with state law is none of the coach's business.

If he's worried about his players being hurt, then he should ban them from driving motor vehicles.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

If someone wants to go out to the range for fun thats one thing, but when it gets to the point when they are carrying them everywhere they go it is just a problem waiting to happen.

40+ states license people to carry concealed firearms almost everywhere they go. In none of them, has it been a problem. Your assumption is false.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I really dont see a problem here. Look at Augusta National Golf Club. They didn't admit the first black member till 1990 and I think it's still an all mens golf club. Private club they can admit whomever they please.

So you're in favor of allowing discrimination?

[NCclimber 0]

John,

You seem intent on overlooking what has been stated repeatedly. This is a private institution, that has the "right" to set policy for it's students.

Furthermore, big time college football programs are basically dictatorships. What the coach says... goes. Period. My way or the highway.

Every team member is there voluntary. Following the coach's and university's rules are a conditional requirement?

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

Quote

I really dont see a problem here. Look at Augusta National Golf Club. They didn't admit the first black member till 1990 and I think it's still an all mens golf club. Private club they can admit whomever they please.

So you're in favor of allowing discrimination?

I never said that. It's a private club and they can admit whomever they please. I think their policies are BS, but I'm not a member nor would I want to be one. Do you have a problem with private institutions having certain rules and guidelines?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Is it illegal to carry a gun in Miami or do they have CCW? If it is legal i don't see how he can prohibit it. It is their personal business. Why tell people how to live?

In Florida, you can legally carry a handgun in your vehicle without special permission. To carry on your person you need a state license. Either way, what they do outside of the school in adherence with state law is none of the coach's business.

If he's worried about his players being hurt, then he should ban them from driving motor vehicles.

As we've been saying, John, this has nothing to do with rights. It's ultimately about team discipline. If Coach wants to set a standard of conduct for his players stricter than than set by the Florida Legislature, that's his prerogative. He's God. His way, or you're off the team.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You seem intent on overlooking what has been stated repeatedly. This is a private institution, that has the "right" to set policy for it's students.

Furthermore, big time college football programs are basically dictatorships. What the coach says... goes. Period. My way or the highway.

Every team member is there voluntary. Following the coach's and university's rules are a conditional requirement?

I've identified the legal and moral flaws in this argument. Put simply, it's false. Period.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

it's false.

Is not.

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

Quote

You seem intent on overlooking what has been stated repeatedly. This is a private institution, that has the "right" to set policy for it's students.

Furthermore, big time college football programs are basically dictatorships. What the coach says... goes. Period. My way or the highway.

Every team member is there voluntary. Following the coach's and university's rules are a conditional requirement?

I've identified the legal and moral flaws in this argument. Put simply, it's false. Period.

And where did you go to law school?

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[kelpdiver 2]

this isn't a law school question.

This is an NCAA one. I went to a Div I school and by the long reaching definitions, am considered a booster.

[billvon 2,434]

>Either way, what they do outside of the school in adherence with state
>law is none of the coach's business.

Nonsense. It is legal to drink alcohol. Would you be in favor of a law that said coaches had to allow players to practice while they were falling-down drunk? It is legal to wear whatever you like. If a coach wants to make a rule saying you cannot wear the opponent's jersey and appear at one of his pep rallies right before the game, would you be against that?

This is about the freedom to run your team how you want.

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

This is about the freedom to run your team how you want.

Exactly. I still dont see why people are making such a huge deal about this. I swam in college and our coach had some weird rules. We had to follow them, period. You wanted to swim, you followed the rules. End of story.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Either way, what they do outside of the school in adherence with state
>law is none of the coach's business.

Nonsense. It is legal to wear whatever you like. If a coach wants to make a rule saying you cannot wear the opponent's jersey and appear at one of his pep rallies right before the game, would you be against that?

This is about the freedom to run your team how you want.

Your alcohol one makes no sense, the players don't bring guns on the field (or to pep rallies), and the players didn't have the guns in any of the incidents, someone else did.

The jersey one kinda does, but it doesn't relate to property, it relates to a school rally. It would make more sense if the coach forbid the players to even OWN an opponent's jersey and where it anywhere at any time.

Simple enough, if the coach instructed his teammembers that they absolutely CANNOT speak against the war in public, or even in their own homes,

how many here would change their position? (some would in a heartbeat - others acknowledge that likely some players are restricted from free speech in order to keep their scholarships or jobs, etc)

Is it really right? (right, not legal, I'm sure it's legal in some places)

It's not about drinking or clothes, it's a basic rights like speech and bearing arms - at least we can keep it apples to apples if we compare to free speech

IMO - Coaches have stupid rules, players need to follow them if they want to play. If the coaches cross the line, the players can choose to make a stink if they feel compelled to.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

So you're in favor of allowing discrimination?

I never said that. It's a private club and they can admit whomever they please. I think their policies are BS, but I'm not a member nor would I want to be one. Do you have a problem with private institutions having certain rules and guidelines?

I'll rephrase.

So you're in favor of allowing private institutions to discriminate against blacks, women, gun owners, or anyone else, as long as they don't have any connection to the government?

And if discrimination is a bad thing when done by government, then why is it a good thing when done by private groups of people?

As for me, I'm against discrimination like this regardless of who is doing it. It may be allowable for private groups, but that doesn't make it proper.

Feel free to admit that you hate discrimination, despite the fact that some private groups do it. That's doesn't weaken your position - it would just explain it.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

this has nothing to do with rights. It's ultimately about team discipline. If Coach wants to set a standard of conduct for his players stricter than than set by the Florida Legislature, that's his prerogative. He's God. His way, or you're off the team.

Coaches should not preempt state law, federal law, or constitutional rights. If the coach told the players it was okay to drink champagne to celebrate a victory, while underaged, do you think a defense of "The coach told me I could do it!" would hold up in court?

[billvon 2,434]

>Your alcohol one makes no sense, the players don't bring guns on the field (or to pep rallies) . .

??? Uh, right. Nor did they bring alcohol in my example. They just showed up falling-down drunk. Note that drinking outside the stadium is legal, assuming they are of legal age etc etc.

>It would make more sense if the coach forbid the players to even OWN
>an opponent's jersey and where it anywhere at any time.

Fair enough. That's actually more similar to the "gun ban."

>Is it really right?

The coach has a right to do it, even though I think it's dumb.

>IMO - Coaches have stupid rules, players need to follow them if they
>want to play. If the coaches cross the line, the players can choose to make
>a stink if they feel compelled to.

Absolutely. And when the coach comes up with such stupid rules that all his team members quit, the problem solves itself.

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

this has nothing to do with rights. It's ultimately about team discipline. If Coach wants to set a standard of conduct for his players stricter than than set by the Florida Legislature, that's his prerogative. He's God. His way, or you're off the team.

Coaches should not preempt state law, federal law, or constitutional rights. If the coach told the players it was okay to drink champagne to celebrate a victory, while underaged, do you think a defense of "The coach told me I could do it!" would hold up in court?

That is so silly. Private intitutions can have more restrictive rules than the states or feds, but not less restrictive rules. Some forms of discrimination that used to be perfectly legal (and indeed promoted in your home state of Texas) are now specifically outlawed.

But these students are not being discriminated against, they are being given a code of conduct as a condition of being on a sports team. If they don't like it, they can, presumably, join the cheerleading squad that doesn't have such a code of conduct. It's not like the condition is beyond their control, like being black or female.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

this has nothing to do with rights. It's ultimately about team discipline. If Coach wants to set a standard of conduct for his players stricter than than set by the Florida Legislature, that's his prerogative. He's God. His way, or you're off the team.

Coaches should not preempt state law, federal law, or constitutional rights. If the coach told the players it was okay to drink champagne to celebrate a victory, while underaged, do you think a defense of "The coach told me I could do it!" would hold up in court?

That is so silly. Private intitutions can have more restrictive rules than the states or feds, but not less restrictive rules. Some forms of discrimination that used to be perfectly legal (and indeed promoted in your home state of Texas) are now specifically outlawed.

But these students are not being discriminated against, they are being given a code of conduct as a condition of being on a sports team. If they don't like it, they can, presumably, join the cheerleading squad that doesn't have such a code of conduct. It's not like the condition is beyond their control, like being black or female.

That's my response, too. The laws set minimum standards, not maximum standards.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...
So you're in favor of allowing private institutions to discriminate against blacks, women, gun owners, or anyone else, as long as they don't have any connection to the government?

Yes. Stay out of my life unless I ask you in.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>1 - Nor did they bring alcohol in my example. They just showed up falling-down drunk.

2 - Fair enough. That's actually more similar to the "gun ban."

3 - And when the coach comes up with such stupid rules that all his team members quit, the problem solves itself.

1 - I guess the players could show up to practice with gun powder residue on their hands, OH NO! it just doesn't compare in any way shape or form

2 - The shirt thing isn't similar at all to the gun ban - clothing is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. You're using such watered down examples because you think this is a nit and want to minimalize it. It's not a nit for those that believe in personal rights. So even for those that don't personally care about the 2nd amendment, should still care about erosion of our rights.


3 - Players quitting over it? Well, I'm waiting for the coach to tell all his players they aren't allowed to vote in the next election, or exercise free speech or rights to associate - as it takes too much out of their day that should be spent thinking about football. Then maybe it wouldn't be as much of a nit and people might want to consider that these guys are losing their rights due to a very sticky situation - losing a sports scholarship shouldn't be the only way to stand up for basic human rights - and blackmailing these young people is despicable.

Free speech, voting, right to assemble, etc - These are the correct analogies, not liquor or t-shirts or whether they date girls during the season........

So I'm ok as long as you'd not be bothered if the coach is allow well within his rights to tell the players how to vote or to restrict them altogether from voting or free speech.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants