Oh, I don’t think that will be necessary. We’ll get what we want.
>Oh, I don’t think that will be necessary. We’ll get what we want.
I really don’t think so; and here’s why: the ‘exemptions’ are entirely ingrained into the culture not only of “law enforcement” but general government as well.
An example; consider security guards in court-houses. Armed.
The general citizen, unarmed; not only that, but an attempt to be armed in said courthouse will bring down harsh punishment.
The USSC has, however repeatedly ruled that the police have no affirmative obligation to ensure a particular citizen’s safety. This means that if “some crazy nutjob” busts into a courthouse you’re obligated to be in (say jury-duty), the police have no obligation to ensure your safety. Just like Columbine and other shootings in “gun free zones” the police generally stay back until the perp has offed himself (under the guise of “officer safety”) and even their militarized SWAT (under the guise of “officer safety”) will hold back... apparently “officer safety” justifies ANY and ALL disarming of citizens. [slight sarcasm]
But back to the courthouse example, how will the judge, the courthouse employees, and even the general citizens react to nullifying the exemption of “law enforcement”? I am fairly sure that they’ll all raise hell about nobody being able to protect them at all.