University of North Texas Suspends Student for… Gun Ownersh

[Philip Ferguson]

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/12/university-of-north-texas-susspeds/?fbclid=IwAR00psb08Ap87-dg4XUeBK0dwQ0FtCgXDEgL0bOzQtFhnupH0Dqq_Ol9B3o#axzz5Z12DXONc

"Apparently, the school was singling him out as a conservative, licensed gun owner and not concerned about safety."

Edited December 7, 2018 by Philip Ferguson
title edit

[UNTLifer]

If true and the facts in this story are accurate, UNT-Dallas gonna be paying up.

[GTWT]

Fake news.

 

[Censored by Laurie]

this is definitely being presented as an objective (and well-edited) reporting of all the facts. 

[MeanGreenTexan]

2 minutes ago, Censored by Laurie said:

this is definitely being presented as an objective (and well-edited) reporting of all the facts. 

We should expect nothing less from that tried & true journalistic beacon: ammoland.com

[Censored by Laurie]

Just now, MeanGreenTexan said:

We should expect nothing less from that tried & true journalistic beacon: ammoland.com

half the guys bitching about the NT Daily are likely regular patrons of ammoland.com...of course, not recognizing irony. 

[Jason Howeth]

I'm sorry. Can someone point me to an article describing a better recording of the meeting? Can anyone here point me to a reason why this man should be considered a threat to the school?

[Mean Green 93-98]

That is very poorly written.  How would GPS validate anything if his alleged threat was made "off-campus"?  At any rate, neither gun ownership nor conservatism should lead to a student's suspension.  A murder threat should lead to his expulsion and criminal charges. 

Edited December 10, 2018 by Mean Green 93-98

[UNTflyer]

Read the comments section for a bit of clarity from his fellow students.

 

[Censored by Laurie]

1 hour ago, UNTflyer said:

Read the comments section for a bit of clarity from his fellow students.

 

but I wanted to be outraged at the liberal anti-gun elite indoctrination of higher education

[Salsa_Verde]

I remember a couple of semesters back they told some Navy Vet he couldn’t bring his “service dog” on campus anymore. Same BS outrage insued and later on it turned out his “service dog” wasn’t properly trained and it was just growling and biting other students. Of course that didn’t stop people from jumping to BS conclusions. Same BS here. Just move on, not worth your time. 

[peanuts104]

I saw this story and came here to see if there was more clarification.  There is not.  The only narrative I can find is the one being put out by OCT (open carry texas).  I don't have an issue with OCT, however I would like more than Mr. Masin's side of the story.  I know that the other side are being told not to share details , however, it seems these details are not being clearly communicated to Mr. Masin as well, or at least that's how he's presenting it.

My point, he seems (either genuinely or acting like) he doesn't know why this is happening, and we have no counter story.  Until we get clarification from another authority or source, I'm not going to trust the comment section on ammoland about this being justified.  The university needs to come out with concrete evidence/charges/something to back up their case.  I would be very interested to see the actual message or messages they found to be "threats" or "threatening" or whatever.

Linked is a video interview with Mr. Masin with some dude from Firearm's Policy Coalition.  The interviewer asks a lot of leading questions and it is obviously pro gun bias.  I was looking for another source or information from the other side of this story and I couldn't find one.  In my opinion, the university has not handled this well in terms of info disclosure.

EDIT DERP FORGOT YOUTUBE LINK, it's a long interview and again is only one side of the story.

 

Edited December 11, 2018 by peanuts104

[Censored by Laurie]

4 hours ago, peanuts104 said:

I saw this story and came here to see if there was more clarification.  There is not.  The only narrative I can find is the one being put out by OCT (open carry texas).  I don't have an issue with OCT, however I would like more than Mr. Masin's side of the story.  I know that the other side are being told not to share details , however, it seems these details are not being clearly communicated to Mr. Masin as well, or at least that's how he's presenting it.

My point, he seems (either genuinely or acting like) he doesn't know why this is happening, and we have no counter story.  Until we get clarification from another authority or source, I'm not going to trust the comment section on ammoland about this being justified.  The university needs to come out with concrete evidence/charges/something to back up their case.  I would be very interested to see the actual message or messages they found to be "threats" or "threatening" or whatever.

Linked is a video interview with Mr. Masin with some dude from Firearm's Policy Coalition.  The interviewer asks a lot of leading questions and it is obviously pro gun bias.  I was looking for another source or information from the other side of this story and I couldn't find one.  In my opinion, the university has not handled this well in terms of info disclosure.

from a classmate:
"Ok, first off, I’m both a student at this law school and in this particular student’s class (all 1L’s have all their classes together in the first year with the exception of legal writing groups and mentor ship groups). Second, I’m very conservative and pro-second amendment.
That said, this article leaves out critical information. No. Brandon was not suspended for being a conservative or gun owner. There are several students in our class that fit that description who have had no such experience at UNT college of law. Brandon was suspended because a student claimed they overheard Brandon make an off the cuff comment about how he was going to “hold up the school” with a firearm if he received poor grades on finals. The students in our class are well aware that Brandon carries, especially given that he was unnecessarily displayed his firearm numerous times (at least once in a study group, and allegedly once at a federalist society meeting while discussing the second amendment) on campus which violates the provisions of his CHL license.

 

There are certainly misgivings about the way the university conducted their investigation, or possibly the lack thereof, but the notion that this was purely a ploy to get rid of a conservative gun owner by sheer virtue of their politics or status as a gun owner is a complete lie. Again, I say this as both a conservative, a gun owner, and a student in this law student’s class who knows Brandon personally."

[peanuts104]

2 hours ago, Censored by Laurie said:

from a classmate:
"Ok, first off, I’m both a student at this law school and in this particular student’s class (all 1L’s have all their classes together in the first year with the exception of legal writing groups and mentor ship groups). Second, I’m very conservative and pro-second amendment.
That said, this article leaves out critical information. No. Brandon was not suspended for being a conservative or gun owner. There are several students in our class that fit that description who have had no such experience at UNT college of law. Brandon was suspended because a student claimed they overheard Brandon make an off the cuff comment about how he was going to “hold up the school” with a firearm if he received poor grades on finals. The students in our class are well aware that Brandon carries, especially given that he was unnecessarily displayed his firearm numerous times (at least once in a study group, and allegedly once at a federalist society meeting while discussing the second amendment) on campus which violates the provisions of his CHL license.

 

There are certainly misgivings about the way the university conducted their investigation, or possibly the lack thereof, but the notion that this was purely a ploy to get rid of a conservative gun owner by sheer virtue of their politics or status as a gun owner is a complete lie. Again, I say this as both a conservative, a gun owner, and a student in this law student’s class who knows Brandon personally."

I read that comment.  Again, there's no way to verify that any of that is true.  The university needs to make a statement.  And I agree that this being a ploy to get rid of a conservative gun owner is likely inaccurate and outlandish. Generally, the university is allowed to make their own rules in regard to how students can carry on campus per the campus carry law, HOWEVER one big caveat is it MUST be concealed carry, not open carry.  Meaning, he broke the law if he displayed his firearm as the comment points out.  But again, this is all unconfirmed info and the university needs to make a statement.

Generally though, I am not a fan of people interpreting off the cuff remarks ("hold up the school").  While I understand the serious nature of such a statement, most people who would say this, whether they carry a gun or not, are joking.  I don't know the context of when or how he supposedly said this, but again, it was probably meant to be a joke. Although I would definitely make the argument that if you carry a gun and people know you carry a gun you probably shouldn't joke about stuff like that. I feel like the university could undercut any potential backlash by making a statement sooner rather than later.

[Quoner]

8 minutes ago, peanuts104 said:

I read that comment.  Again, there's no way to verify that any of that is true.  The university needs to make a statement.  And I agree that this being a ploy to get rid of a conservative gun owner is likely inaccurate and outlandish. Generally, the university is allowed to make their own rules in regard to how students can carry on campus per the campus carry law, HOWEVER one big caveat is it MUST be concealed carry, not open carry.  Meaning, he broke the law if he displayed his firearm as the comment points out.  But again, this is all unconfirmed info and the university needs to make a statement.

Generally though, I am not a fan of people interpreting off the cuff remarks ("hold up the school").  While I understand the serious nature of such a statement, most people who would say this, whether they carry a gun or not, are joking.  I don't know the context of when or how he supposedly said this, but again, it was probably meant to be a joke. Although I would definitely make the argument that if you carry a gun and people know you carry a gun you probably shouldn't joke about stuff like that. I feel like the university could undercut any potential backlash by making a statement sooner rather than later.

What statement would work here besides they are looking into it - especially with privacy laws and what not? Anyone else more enlightened on what the university can and can't say here? Why does ammoland and friends deserve a statement they would completely ignore anyway? Do you see anyone in that comment thread ready to hear both sides and stand down? Nope, this is the faster, harder, more bad ass "taek" economy in full force. 

As for that second paragraph, you eventually ended up where you needed to in that second to last sentence, so nice work. 

[peanuts104]

2 minutes ago, Quoner said:

What statement would work here besides they are looking into it - especially with privacy laws and what not? Anyone else more enlightened on what the university can and can't say here? Why does ammoland and friends deserve a statement they would completely ignore anyway? Do you see anyone in that comment thread ready to hear both sides and stand down? Nope, this is the faster, harder, more bad ass "taek" economy in full force. 

As for that second paragraph, you eventually ended up where you needed to in that second to last sentence, so nice work. 

It doesn't have to be anything crazy if there are privacy concerns.  "We are investigating alleged threats by one of our students to one of our staff.  More information will be forthcoming once a thorough investigation is complete."

[Quoner]

5 minutes ago, peanuts104 said:

It doesn't have to be anything crazy if there are privacy concerns.  "We are investigating alleged threats by one of our students to one of our staff.  More information will be forthcoming once a thorough investigation is complete."

If you can read that comment section and think a placeholder statement changes a thing, I really want a way to mainline your optimism for humanity into my bloodstream. On the other hand, nice to @eulesseagle out and about again. 

[peanuts104]

1 minute ago, Quoner said:

If you can read that comment section and think a placeholder statement changes a thing, I really want a way to mainline your optimism for humanity into my bloodstream. On the other hand, nice to @eulesseagle out and about again. 

You're probably right.  If I could get rid of the optimism in my veins I would.

Either way, you knew something had to be somewhat off with this.  If you conceal carry, nobody should know about it because...it's concealed.  That's the whole point, to be incognito.

[Censored by Laurie]

2 hours ago, peanuts104 said:

Either way, you knew something had to be somewhat off with this.  If you conceal carry, nobody should know about it because...it's concealed.  That's the whole point, to be incognito.

also...ammoland.com

[CJ Grisham]

On 12/11/2018 at 3:51 AM, peanuts104 said:

I saw this story and came here to see if there was more clarification.  There is not.  The only narrative I can find is the one being put out by OCT (open carry texas).  I don't have an issue with OCT, however I would like more than Mr. Masin's side of the story.  I know that the other side are being told not to share details , however, it seems these details are not being clearly communicated to Mr. Masin as well, or at least that's how he's presenting it.

My point, he seems (either genuinely or acting like) he doesn't know why this is happening, and we have no counter story.  Until we get clarification from another authority or source, I'm not going to trust the comment section on ammoland about this being justified.  The university needs to come out with concrete evidence/charges/something to back up their case.  I would be very interested to see the actual message or messages they found to be "threats" or "threatening" or whatever.

Linked is a video interview with Mr. Masin with some dude from Firearm's Policy Coalition.  The interviewer asks a lot of leading questions and it is obviously pro gun bias.  I was looking for another source or information from the other side of this story and I couldn't find one.  In my opinion, the university has not handled this well in terms of info disclosure.

EDIT DERP FORGOT YOUTUBE LINK, it's a long interview and again is only one side of the story.

 

You can listen to my interview with Brandon here last week. We were the first to break the story: https://youtu.be/oLCNFTCGpPw?t=9236

[Quoner]

21 minutes ago, CJ Grisham said:

You can listen to my interview with Brandon here last week. We were the first to break the story: https://youtu.be/oLCNFTCGpPw?t=9236

A/S/L?

[bmasin]

On 12/11/2018 at 3:51 AM, peanuts104 said:

I saw this story and came here to see if there was more clarification.  There is not.  The only narrative I can find is the one being put out by OCT (open carry texas).  I don't have an issue with OCT, however I would like more than Mr. Masin's side of the story.  I know that the other side are being told not to share details , however, it seems these details are not being clearly communicated to Mr. Masin as well, or at least that's how he's presenting it.

My point, he seems (either genuinely or acting like) he doesn't know why this is happening, and we have no counter story.  Until we get clarification from another authority or source, I'm not going to trust the comment section on ammoland about this being justified.  The university needs to come out with concrete evidence/charges/something to back up their case.  I would be very interested to see the actual message or messages they found to be "threats" or "threatening" or whatever.

Linked is a video interview with Mr. Masin with some dude from Firearm's Policy Coalition.  The interviewer asks a lot of leading questions and it is obviously pro gun bias.  I was looking for another source or information from the other side of this story and I couldn't find one.  In my opinion, the university has not handled this well in terms of info disclosure.

EDIT DERP FORGOT YOUTUBE LINK, it's a long interview and again is only one side of the story.

 

I am the student in question. Not terribly interested in defending myself in a forum with people entirely outside of the situation, however, you do raise a perfectly valid point about the availability of information and essentially just being told "things" from all sorts of different sides that claim to be objective. The organization FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, sort of like the ACLU of university issues) has received all correspondence that the university has sent to me regarding this incident as well as the recording I made of the meeting with the university's CARE team and investigator and will be publishing an open letter detailing everything that objectively took place, the legal wrongs and proof thereof. That should be a very fact based, nonbiased read whenever it does come out and you can decide for yourself of course.

 

As far as the various outlets and reportings, I've made it very clear with every outlet ranging from these guys to the Dallas Morning News I've no problem sitting down with anyone and telling them anything regarding this it's ultimately the same set of facts and I'm just essentially on repeat. Sorry if the editorializing is getting to you but anything that's not a direct quote from me is outside of my control. Same with the anonymous post supposedly from another student stating I basically Wild West my way through the law school flashing guns and for some reason openly laying a pistol out on a library table (library has glass walls so that means literally dozens of people can at anytime glance in) and mysteriously no one reported ever, and all that mess. No point arguing with an anonymous forum individual that could ultimately be just a random troll.

 

Seriously though, I'm open to be asked whatever, and as far as an objective source goes, besides FIRE that I mentioned above I think that's the best you'll get as no matter which way it goes anyone trying to cover this will have a desired view/spin and outcome.

[peanuts104]

10 hours ago, bmasin said:

 

I am the student in question. Not terribly interested in defending myself in a forum with people entirely outside of the situation, however, you do raise a perfectly valid point about the availability of information and essentially just being told "things" from all sorts of different sides that claim to be objective. The organization FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, sort of like the ACLU of university issues) has received all correspondence that the university has sent to me regarding this incident as well as the recording I made of the meeting with the university's CARE team and investigator and will be publishing an open letter detailing everything that objectively took place, the legal wrongs and proof thereof. That should be a very fact based, nonbiased read whenever it does come out and you can decide for yourself of course.

 

As far as the various outlets and reportings, I've made it very clear with every outlet ranging from these guys to the Dallas Morning News I've no problem sitting down with anyone and telling them anything regarding this it's ultimately the same set of facts and I'm just essentially on repeat. Sorry if the editorializing is getting to you but anything that's not a direct quote from me is outside of my control. Same with the anonymous post supposedly from another student stating I basically Wild West my way through the law school flashing guns and for some reason openly laying a pistol out on a library table (library has glass walls so that means literally dozens of people can at anytime glance in) and mysteriously no one reported ever, and all that mess. No point arguing with an anonymous forum individual that could ultimately be just a random troll.

 

Seriously though, I'm open to be asked whatever, and as far as an objective source goes, besides FIRE that I mentioned above I think that's the best you'll get as no matter which way it goes anyone trying to cover this will have a desired view/spin and outcome.

I wasn't trying to take any shots at you, my point is there are two sides to every story and as observers from a distance, we have to consider the source of our information.  If you read some of the other stuff I said I basically disregarded what the comment sections on ammoland said because there is no way to verify that.  Either way, I wish you no ill will.  I hope the university clarifies their position in this because based on what you've said, they've kept you in the dark about the specific allegations and I don't think that's fair, at least in my opinion.

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

On 12/11/2018 at 12:08 PM, Quoner said:

If you can read that comment section and think a placeholder statement changes a thing, I really want a way to mainline your optimism for humanity into my bloodstream. On the other hand, nice to @eulesseagle out and about again. 

Your memory of people on this board is always impressive. Mad props.

I had to search google if the Federalists believed in punctuation. I couldn't find a clear answer. Perhaps e. e. cummings was a member of the Federalist Society. 

[Censored by Laurie]

8 hours ago, peanuts104 said:

I wasn't trying to take any shots at you

ha!