"I'm one of the good guys," Hughes said. "Now they're trying to make me one of the people I protect society from." [More]Please. You have it to protect yourself and your own.
You're entitled to no more exemptions in this regard than I am, meaning, interestingly enough, that you're entitled to all of them. But enough with the self-serving BS.
If you can do it, I can do it. But that's not the claim I'm hearing.
[Via William T]
4 comments:
In September of 2014, you were quite defensive of Shaneen Allen who was busted by the NJ cops in a similar situation.
Now an 'out of state' LEO finds himself in the same Catch 22 situation, and you are unable to sympathize with his quandary.
When he protests, is that legitimately "Self-defensive BS"?
How is Officer Hughes (from Pennsylvania) more responsible for New Jersey's arcane legal structure than Shaneen Allen?
Did I say he was?
His excuse to the media reeks of saying he has his gun to protect society because of his Only One "good guy" status. His defense as a non-arrest-powered CO recommends a change to the Only Ones exemptions not available to Shaneen Allen, to me, or to you. If the prosecutor decides not to go forward in this case, it's only because govt deems him more special than we mundanes and/or because they don't want the media hassle that would not occur were he "ordinary."
The "good for me but not for thee" mantra doesn't play around here, and that's entirely consistent with anything I've ever said. I was against national carry for LEOs because they wanted their seat at the table but didn't care if the rest of us were left out in the cold looking in, and had no incentive to change that once they had theirs.
Equal protection or feel my pain. Conversely,if he wants to claim 2A as a "mere" citizen I'll be all for full recognition of his RKKBA.
Are you saying Hughes is not a "sworn officer"?
If Hughes is only serving in an administrative office, that lends credence to your implied suggestion that he is riding on his administrative office to garner special privilege.
But if he is a 'sworn officer', then he has already been vested to carry a firearm, and most states assume that (much like a CHL) he has already been recognized as a recognized, responsibly armed official representative of his state.
I understand that you have probably researched the question more deeply than we have. I'm not very good at the depth of research which have convinced you of his arrogance, so I'm hoping that you can provide links which will help the rest of us to understand your invective.
I have no more information than I already provided. Did you read the "More" link ? Because it covers that he doesn't have arrest powers. Totally not getting why there's any controversy over my statements.
Post a Comment