A loosening of NY SAFE Act I Oppose.

[gejohnston]

5. my reply

Yes I agree with it, and no you shouldn't have a full auto since the excops wouldn't be allowed to either (see false dilemma in your book of fallacies you so often tout, johnston).
How in the world did you jump from excops being allowed to keep assault rifles they purchased when on active duty, to you being allowed to purchase an automatic ak47? a leap of faith? o ye who never met a meaty gun control law he didn't like? (bgchecks are not guncontrol - manchin/toomey).
And your OP remark is invalid anyway, unless I read it wrong, the revision would allow excops only to retain assault rifles & clips purchased when they were on active duty, not allowed to purchase any new ones, which would be in violation of the NY safe act.

No, it will allow them to continue to buy and own them. The ones they carried on the force were police issue weapons.

No but they're better gun handlers than the average gunowner, & more responsible than the average gunnut, and generally are NOT gunnuts. Also, posting 5 links to police brutality proves really nothing except you're trying to gild your false dilemma.

I would like to see some empirical evidence to support that. It is an INTP thing, facts and honest data is the only thing that means anything to me.

And which of those gun control laws do you support johnston? do you support
A. Limiting clips to 10 rounds? as per recent obama/biden?
B. feinsteins' recent assault weapons/rifle ban (awb)?
C. I know you support at least Manchin toomey bgcheck, which failed, but do you support the earlier universal bg check proposal?
D. Do you support more fed funding for gun violence research?
E. Do you think US guncontrol laws affect gun suicide rates for the better?

A-not relevant
B-not relevant, but a law that lists a specific rifle with a solid wooden stock as "legally protected" while the exact same rifle with a folding stock as "banned" needs to be thought out better. Just me.
C-Do you support the provision of Manchin Toomey that would have allowed interstate handgun purchases that was completely banned without FFL under the 1968 Gun Control Act? If you are going to propose "universal background checks" I think it is best to do it right the first time. MT would have only affected gun show sales by non FFL holders in states that doesn't have UBC and intra state online sales, since interstate gun sales already have BGC unless they are violating the 1968 Gun Control Act. I actually think the system Michigan has been using since the 1960s is a good basis.
D-When done by criminologists funded by the DoJ as has been before, during, and after the CDC ban on advocacy. When social scientists reviewed the studies, the one speaking for the group, IIRC James Wright, described it as scientifically valid as NRA propaganda.
E-There is no empirical evidence to support that. That is the only reason that it matters. There is a study that attempts to make that connection, but fails in include other factors like rural vs urban.

I already know what you think of 'may issue' concealed carry laws:
johnston: it would be best to eliminate may issue to shall issue. I think may issue violates the 14th Amendment. The problem states are those with gun laws closer to your {may issue} liking. I don't see it changing in those states because of the classism in the gun control movement. The other may issue states, like Alabama and Maryland, are more ummmmmm race based than class. Texas, Florida, Wyoming, New Mexico have standards. New York and California do not. See the difference?
.. As much as gun control advocates bad mouth Texas laws, at least they have stringent training requirements that are uniform statewide. http://sync.democraticunderground.com/1172110291 have a nyth day.

The difference between "shall issue" and "may issue" simply means the discretion that the licensing authority have. Most of New York State is defaco "shall issue". Making it law simply means that if one meets the criteria outlined in the statute, the licensing authority must issue. It has nothing to do with how stringent or liberal the criteria is. For example, Wyoming's concealed carry law from 1888-1995 was a "shall issue" that limited permits to those in specific occupations. IOW, most of the CCW holders in NYC would be turned down under that system. I don't understand why you would be opposed to that.