Rule #1: No man shall hit another man.
Rule #2: If someone breaks Rule #1, then Rule #1 does not apply to such a one.
My specific question is: How can someone infer that Rule #1 does apply to him?
It’s not enough to say, “I am not breaking Rule #1—hence, it applies to me.” Such reasoning would be denying the antecedent, which is a formal fallacy. How can someone infer “¬Q” in this case?