Constitutional (and/or God given) rights are not unequivocal. Certain restrictions apply.
It's a simple matter of choice. You want to play basketball, you play by the rules. The players still have the right to own firearms. That is not being taken away from them.
Under the terms of the scholarship, they are agreeing to (among other things) not own a firearm. In exchange, they are rewarded with a full ride to college and the quasi-celebrity status of athletes. The college (particularly a private one) can place reasonable restrictions of this exchange of good and services. Plenty of coaches likewise restrict freedom of speech by controlling what players, and under what circumstances, can talk with the media or make statements.
Before someone tries to link a 'reasonable restriction' to discrimination, think again. Discrimination is different. One can't choose to no longer be hispanic, or female, for example. One can choose not to own a firearm.
That being said, banning firearms on the team in question probably isn't likely to make any difference in the outcomes of future events by the players. In other words, none of them are likely to commit a homicide anyway, so the ban has little practical effect.
It probably does have the effect of imparting a measure of trust in the coach by the parent of the athletes. He's at least paying lip service to caring about the welfare of his players and that might be enough to get him a recruit or two. But, unless Billy Tubbs has turned over a new leaf, I wouldn't take this act at face value. Someone above was correct, Tubbs was the coach for Oklahoma in the 80's, early 90's. Both his basketball program and Barry Switzer's football program were notorious for recruiting athletes of less than stellar character that had frequent run-ins with the law.
What is he gonna do ? A background check ?
