That was my thought at first. But, after reading those three paragraphs again, I think it's more a matter of a poorly written article by an incompetent "journalist".
The writers ask leading questions and selectively print what fits their agenda. I'm betting that in a full, properly done interview Elder's comments would not have come across as they do here. They just printed the portion that makes the police appear anti carry. Had I been the reporter I'd have asked Elder if the police felt there were exceptions to the non-intervention advice. Which I bet he would have said yes. He can't be seen as encouraging vigilantism. Which is obviously not the case here & I don't think he was implying that it was.
Exactly!