It's an example, one of many, of the sense of privilege and entitlement that can happen among the police, especially when law and punishment does not fall nearly as heavily on them.
It's a rank injustice that is very corrosive.
Recently, a liberal (not Mr. A for once) brought this exact story up. And his refrain was: "Don't trust the police, no justice, no peace"
Catchy and a bit trite, but the first part has a fundamental truth. See this two part video by Mr. James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and in part two Officer George Bruch of the Virginia Beach Police Department. Both agree Don't Talk to Cops.
The videos have a great amount of info in them, and show what the police can and cannot do and what they can and cannot say in an investigation.
Now back to the conversation. The liberal was incensed, and rightly so: "Hey , what do you think would happen to you if you tazed a ten year old for no reason?"
Yes, the police do get special powers and when they screw up they can face a lot less punishment than if you or I broke the law.
This made me ask him what his views were on May Issue versus Shall Issue?
His response: "W
You get it? He doesn't care if the police, the very people he was raging against for their special privilege, are empowered to decide, with no justification, who can and cannot be armed
When pressed on the unfairness of giving the cops, and other agents of the state, a blank check on who gets Second Amendment rights the fellow fell back to this: "Isn't May Issue just for concealed carry?"
Well, it depends on the state, in New York State for example, to even own a handgun you need one of their May Issue Permits.
But that obscures the greater point. Is it wrong to let the police pick who can and cannot own guns, but it's suddenly okay to let them pick who can and cannot carry them?
Remember this is a guy who said "Don't trust the police, no justice, no peace"
And now he's defending special police powers. And why? In his own words: "I'm not really a fan of concealed carry period."
Oh well, that's much, much better. He likes Illinois style; where the police are the Only Ones that can carry. Alderman and other politicians can carry too!
But note that he's "indifferent" towards May Issue, as doesn't mind it. It still keeps down that whole "armed society" he's against.
This person who complains about the cops having too much power is indifferent to cops being empowered to say who can and cannot keep or bear arms. And it would seem would prefer the Cops to be the Only Ones who could bear arms.
Update: This is the same guy who yuks it up and forwards links such as this. Haha, evil billionaires that like keeping "affordable care" out of the hands of the poor. Meanwhile he approves of a siting president that sees "cheap handguns" as a problem.
This person who also regularly rails against the privilege of the wealthy and politically connected is indifferent to the cops giving out permits only to the wealthy and connected.
Call me cynical, but when you rail against the "social injustice" the poor face at the hands of the police and the rich I'd sort of expect you to be against a system where it's made legal for the police and the rich to have guns but illegal for the poor to have guns.
And not, at best, indifferent.
In short, this is why I don't believe liberals when they try to claim they're all about the plight of the poor and social justice. If you don't think the average citizen can be trusted to own and carry a gun, then I'm pretty suspicious on your "good intentions" towards them.