Police chiefs have discretion to issue gun licenses

[Bourget117]

I still have about a year and 4 months to go until renewal.

Who knows what the wait time will be like then.

Maybe I should start the application process now?

It took me 6 months to get an interview.
Ya you might want to start now.
Hell I might even want to start now myself. Mine expertise in 4 years.

 

[Coyote33]

Um....unfortunately, GOAL can't "Call them in to their offices," though I'm sure that were the paper to contact GOAL, they'd get info. If the paper is interested in a fair, and correct, piece, they'll get info from more than one reliable source. If they're interested in pushing an agenda, they'll do it differently.

GOAL is not a huge organization; it's up to US, the individuals that have a vested interest, to make sure that the crap that's wrong, or the stuff that's accurate but contrary to law (like the additional requirements) are brought to light. ...

A dealer in this very thread tried to do what he thought was right, and, instead of getting backup or assistance, was crapped on by people. It is not always easy to get it right. Given that, I give him credit for trying. On the other hand, corrective information is good, but it needs to come in a more positive way.

THIS is the reason I suggest we leave the professional stuff to the professionals, who make a living at this stuff. In the particular area of gun rules, laws, lobbying, that would be GOAL. No?

 

[MisterHappy]

Yes, but the problem is that a journalist looking to write a certain story, or a story with a certain slant, will get the info that they want.

An unbiased, or balanced story WRT 2A stuff will likely quote Jim Wallace, in his role of Executive Director of GOAL. If that does nott happen, then it's likely that the writer is not interested in the "official" 2A side of things.

I'm not saying that all and sundry should go public; but if you are comfortable and know what you're talking about, you should.

 

[mark056]

A dealer in this very thread tried to do what he thought was right, and, instead of getting backup or assistance, was crapped on by people. It is not always easy to get it right. Given that, I give him credit for trying. On the other hand, corrective information is good, but it needs to come in a more positive way. THIS is the reason I suggest we leave the professional stuff to the professionals, who make a living at this stuff. In the particular area of gun rules, laws, lobbying, that would be GOAL. No?

This...

For some strange reason NES likes to eat its own. Not everyone has the level of expertise in dealing with the media and it's easy to get tripped up. It's just like a police interrogation. You can get misquoted, nervous etc.

Personally, I advise people not to talk to the media or the police, neither are your friends.

I have some experience dealing with the public and have been interviewed by the media on non firearms related matters. I would not under most circumstances discuss 2A issues in the media. There are some pretty bright and articulate people who can handle themselves in that arena and I will leave it to them.

I think a lesson was learned here but I also think that some people have been overly critical of a well intentioned effort. It was a learning experience.

 

[Dadstoys]

I've had some experience with how badly things get twisted to suit a reporters agenda.
The story that was written didn't even have a passing resemblance to what actually was said .
Lesson learned , never again.

 

[Coyote33]

You really, REALLY, need to learn to talk in small "sound bites". That is, key word phrases. One time, I actually WROTE DOWN what I wanted them to say as my "quote". They did, in fact, use just that.

You need to MAKE THEIR JOB EASY FOR THEM, and this will reward you.

DO THE WORK, THE HEAVY LIFTING, and they will take the easy path and run with it.

When you are at a hearing or protest or rally, SEEK OUT the reporters, and either BRING THEM to some DESIGNATED SPEAKERS, or LEARN HOW TO GIVE THEM PROPER INFORMATION. If you don't do this, they will seek out WHOEVER, and that might be THE WRONG PERSON to support our side of the story.

GOOD LUCK.

 

[TayNinh_66]

As a former cub reporter many many years ago, I wrote whatever I could past the editor. I tried extremely hard to use accurate quotes but people talked fast and I didn't know shorthand. I generally tried to be objective in straight front page news, otherwise I was using selected quotes to make whatever point I had in mind.

A FlyDubai plane crashed in Russia killing 62
A FlyDubai plane crashed in Russia when the pilot attempted to land in poor weather conditions
A FlyDubai plane crashed in Russia when Russian air controllers refused to allow the plane to divert to an alternate airport
A FlyDubai plane crashed in Russia when the Boeing 737-800 suffered a catastrophic wing failure

So I could do a straight news story, or seek out people who would provide quotes to support whatever point I (or the editor) was trying to make. I could blame the pilot, the air controllers, or the plane. A Dubai newspaper will blame the Russians. A Russian newspaper will blame the pilot. In other words, don't talk with reporters or cops.

 

[Fine Line Firearms]

You really, REALLY, need to learn to talk in small "sound bites". That is, key word phrases. One time, I actually WROTE DOWN what I wanted them to say as my "quote". They did, in fact, use just that.

You need to MAKE THEIR JOB EASY FOR THEM, and this will reward you.

DO THE WORK, THE HEAVY LIFTING, and they will take the easy path and run with it.

When you are at a hearing or protest or rally, SEEK OUT the reporters, and either BRING THEM to some DESIGNATED SPEAKERS, or LEARN HOW TO GIVE THEM PROPER INFORMATION. If you don't do this, they will seek out WHOEVER, and that might be THE WRONG PERSON to support our side of the story.

GOOD LUCK.

That is really good advice and very accurate.
I had dealings with the media in a prior life and learned this the hard way.
It's been long enough that I actually forgot and figured I could wing it.
It didn't go that badly, all in all, just a few regrets, but you are 100% right and my memory is now refreshed.
Can't wait to see what the next weeks' run of stories holds... We may all be biting our tongues.

 

[M1911]

Yes, but the problem is that a journalist looking to write a certain story, or a story with a certain slant, will get the info that they want. An unbiased, or balanced story WRT 2A stuff will likely quote Jim Wallace, in his role of Executive Director of GOAL. If that does nott happen, then it's likely that the writer is not interested in the "official" 2A side of things. I'm not saying that all and sundry should go public; but if you are comfortable and know what you're talking about, you should.

I disagree. Some years back, I was interviewed by phone by a reporter from the New York Times. He wasn't a cub reporter either. And this phone interview took more than an hour.

When I saw the story that he wrote, I want aghast. This was a senior reporter and he attributed quotes to me that he simply made up out of whole clothe. I did not say or imply the "quotes" that he wrote in that article. He had decided the story that he wanted to write and he wrote that story. He made up quotes to fit his narrative.

This is what you are dealing with when you speak to the press. It isn't a job for neophytes, no matter how confident and knowledgeable you think you are.