David Codrea:

But Lanier and D.C. government didn’t just give up and fold. While these department-protective steps were being taken, legal staff was moving quickly to stall things. The city filed a request for a 180-day stay.

They didn’t have long to wait for a decision.

Judge Scullin ordered a 90-day stay, reflecting an agreement between plaintiff and defense counsels that “plaintiffs do not oppose a 90-day stay—starting immediately.”

MPD was quick to pounce.

“In light of the court issuing a stay of the Palmer v. District of Columbia order, Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier today issued a notice to members of the Metropolitan Police Department rescinding two teletypes related to firearms,” a media release explained. “All laws related to firearms regulation and crimes remain in effect.”

Because neither the judges nor law enforcement (in D.C.) cares about your personal protection.  They’re immoral and only care about themselves.  Contrast that with a Sheriff from my own home state of North Carolina.  One solution is to relocate and leave them to their own devices, as have many gun manufacturers from the North.

David Codrea:

“One thing Manfre said he and many other law enforcement officials would like to see in terms of sensible gun control is a ban on assault weapons,” the PR piece masked as news noted. “’In my opinion, there is no reason to have an assault weapon,’ he said” …

“[O]ne of his former lieutenants — a one-time firearms instructor the sheriff laid off in 2013 — said Manfre has a history of poor performance firing his agency-issued Glock model 17, a 9 mm semi-automatic pistol,” the report explains.

Manfre doesn’t think I should be able to have semi-automatic weapons.  I don’t believe that Manfre should be armed at all because he is dangerous.  There.  We’re even.

Kurt Hofmann:

But it is they, the “progressives,” who hope to keep these most vulnerable members of society disarmed and defenseless. It is they who claim that the best protection for such people is “hate crime” laws, making it “more illegaller” to commit heinous violence against someone if the assailant was motivated by hate for a group his victim is a part of, rather than anything about the victim himself.

With Kurt, I think hate crime laws are an abomination.  It is man trying to control thought rather than punishing behavior.  I may disagree vehemently with the chosen lifestyle of someone, but my disagreement doesn’t in the least remove, obviate or nullify the God-given right to self defense, which is irrevocable.

Fox News:

Should owners of firearms be required to carry gun liability insurance to cover the potential risks their weapons pose?

No.  But I was just wondering whether an insurance company might want to charge higher premiums for someone not armed due to being a higher risk of assault without the proper means of self defense.