The University of Missouri’s reputation as a laughingstock just keeps on growing.
Barry Odom, head coach of the football team, suggested in a Southeastern Conference teleconference that his players were barred from owning handguns, even legally.
The remarks were flagged yesterday by the Auburn beat sports reporter for the Montgomery Advertiser, Matthew Stevens.
https://twitter.com/matthewcstevens/status/771019493908815873
It got quickly picked up by Fox Sports, though the publisher had apparently deleted its story by this afternoon. It’s still showing up in Google search results.
That may be because Odom’s remarks were almost comically vague and prone to multiple interpretations. Columbia Daily Tribune sports writer Blake Toppmeyer tweeted:
I don't really want to get into this Barry Odom/handgun outrage, but I'll just contribute what Odom actually said pic.twitter.com/FC13fLUfaY
— Blake Toppmeyer (@btoppmeyer) September 1, 2016
The Advertiser‘s Stevens used Odom’s meandering response to query other SEC coaches on whether they had a handgun policy, and found that the anti-gun rules are broadly shared (Ole Miss is apparently the exception).
Kentucky head coach Mark Stoops says he has team policy that his players aren’t allowed to own a handgun, even with legal permit.
— Matthew Stevens (@matthewcstevens) August 31, 2016
Texas A&M head coach Kevin Sumlin says “we have a no handgun policy and have had that since we’ve been here”.
— Matthew Stevens (@matthewcstevens) August 31, 2016
MORE: Mizzou student leaders: ‘We are not crybabies’ (VIDEO)
Mizzou Athletics PR was in full panic mode by Thursday morning, pretty much saying what Odom was too incompetent to say clearly – on a call full of reporters – the first time.
Missouri athletics officials reached out to me this a.m. w/ a statement clarifying head coach Barry Odom's statements on SEC teleconference.
— Matthew Stevens (@matthewcstevens) September 1, 2016
From a Missouri spokesperson: "Our program’s policy does not prohibit players from legally owning guns…..
— Matthew Stevens (@matthewcstevens) September 1, 2016
(Cont.) "What Coach was referring to when he talked about 'not allowing it in the program' was the policy that states…
— Matthew Stevens (@matthewcstevens) September 1, 2016
"if a player has a legal issue, and an illegal gun is involved as part of that legal issue, then the player is removed from the program."
— Matthew Stevens (@matthewcstevens) September 1, 2016
Missouri spokesperson continues… "If a player has gone through legal channels to properly own a gun, then that’s their personal choice. "
— Matthew Stevens (@matthewcstevens) September 1, 2016
So that’s what Odom meant by “not allowing it in the program”!
Stevens’ reporting drew the attention of a pro-gun, pro-concealed carry nonprofit, the Firearms Policy Coalition, which said it’s launching an “investigation” into the Mizzou situation.
More context: All 14 SEC campuses prohibit handguns to be carried to ensure a safe campus & @gunpolicy confirmed they oppose this policy.
— Matthew Stevens (@matthewcstevens) September 1, 2016
MORE: Mizzou softball players blame Title IX for whiny teammates
Here is Mizzou’s policy on guns, by the way:
The possession of and discharge of firearms, weapons and explosives on University property including University farms is prohibited except in regularly approved programs or by University agents or employees in the line of duty.
That policy is the subject of an ongoing lawsuit by a Mizzou law professor. The state’s Democratic attorney general, Chris Koster, backed up the professor’s suit two weeks ago, the Daily Tribune reported then:
In the suit, Andrew Hirth, deputy general counsel for Attorney General Chris Koster, wrote that the campus ban on guns conflicts with state law because it does not allow employees to have a concealed gun secured and locked in a vehicle while it is parked or allow for people to transfer firearms to each other “in a calm and nonthreatening manner.” The ban also violates the Missouri Constitution because, Hirth wrote, it fails to “consider the particularized safety concerns of individual, law-abiding employees with valid concealed-carry permits” and to make case-by-case determinations about whether employees should be allowed to carry concealed firearms on any of the system’s four campuses.
The restriction that prohibits firearms does not meet the “strict scrutiny” requirement of Amendment 5, which voters passed in August 2014 and which strengthened gun rights in Missouri, and therefore violates the state constitution, Hirth wrote. Any restriction on the ownership of guns has to stand up to strict scrutiny and can only be done if the issue is “narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest.” Hirth alleges that the ban is not narrowly tailored because it provides no recourse for law-abiding concealed-carry permit holders to request an exemption.
Read Stevens’ tweet stream, Odom’s muddled remarks from the Daily Tribune and the paper’s story on the AG’s lawsuit.
MORE: Mizzou finds $1M for ‘diversity audit’ amid budget crunch
Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter
Please join the conversation about our stories on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, MeWe, Rumble, Gab, Minds and Gettr.