[FPC News] FPC Files Motion to Enjoin New York Body Armor Ban

<p><strong>What: </strong><span style="font-weight: 400;">Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) </span><a href="https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/7667/attachments/original/1774876229/2026.03.27_069-1_Memo_ISO_P's_%28FPC%29_MSJ.pdf?1774876229"><span style="font-weight: 400;">filed</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> a motion for summary judgment in </span><a href="https://www.firearmspolicy.org/heeter"><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">Heeter v. James</span></em></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">, its </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">lawsuit challenging New York’s unconstitutional body armor ban.</span></p>


http://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-files-...-armor-ban

That’s a rhetorical question. The answer is: never.

(I don’t remember which cartoon it was, either Charlie Brown after trying to kick the football only to have it yanked away AGAIN, or Garfield suffering a full tummy after eating an entire lasagna. One of them asked “When, when, when, when, when… will I learn?)

So, I got an email from my left-leaning district directing us to stop teaching Cesar Chavez, now that he is a sexual predator. I was thinking, “But, I never did teach him as a sympathetic historical figure! The facts of his influence on the labor movement are no different than before the allegations.” I taught him as a historic figure, not as a hero, to begin with. But the District’s assumption is that we all must have been presenting him in a sympathetic, rather than objective light.



The good news for me is that I’ve already taught North and South America and I’m retiring in 43 school days, so I’ll never teach Cesar Chavez again anyway. But my colleagues will continue teaching social studies from a far left perspective.

[GOA News] Tell Congress: End the DOJ’s rogue pistol brace crackdown

End the DOJ’s rogue pistol brace crackdown A federal court vacated the Biden pistol brace ban. President Trump campaigned on ending it. Bondi’s DOJ is still enforcing it anyway. On March 16th, 2026, the Department of Justice dropped a bombshell in our ongoing lawsuit, Texas et al. v. ATF: The ATF “continue[s] to enforce the NFA’s and the GCA’s regulation …<br/> <a class="postReadMore" href="https://www.gunowners.org/na03272026/">Read more<i class="fa fa-angle-double-right"></i></a>


https://www.gunowners.org/na03272026/

[FPC News] FPC Files Federal Lawsuit Challenging National Park Carry Bans

<p><strong>What: </strong><span style="font-weight: 400;">Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) </span><a href="https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/16907/attachments/original/1774624164/2026.03.27_001_Complaint.pdf?1774624164"><span style="font-weight: 400;">filed</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> a new federal lawsuit, </span><a href="https://www.firearmspolicy.org/zimmerman"><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">Zimmerman v. Bondi</span></em></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">, challenging the federal laws and regulations banning firearms in facilities and other areas within national parks. </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">FPC is seeking a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the carry bans as well as other relief.</span></p>


http://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-files-...carry-bans

It occurred to me that since the tariffs were struck down by SCOTUS that there should be some huge price reductions at stores, especially since retailers are deciding they want to sue the government to recover what they spent on tariffs that have been ruled unconstitutional. I sure a hell noticed when the prices went up after the tariffs were announced, but afterwards the prices aren't coming back down with any speed.

And about those corporations that are suing to recover the money they spent on tariffs. We all know that corporations don't actually pay for the tariffs, they pass them on to the customer, usually with a 30% markup. Meaning if they paid $1.00 in tariff the customer pays $1.30 in tariff expense at retail. So, technically, for every dollar they get back from the government for tariffs they paid, they should be refunding $1.30 to the customers that bought their merchandise. It was a huge mistake for SCOTUS to rule the tariffs unconstitutional, but it was an even bigger mistake to say that corporations could claw back what they already paid. Someone needs to sue all the corporations for their tariff recoveries because you know for sure they aren't going to hand that money back to the consumers who actually paid the tariffs. 

Actually the DOJ should pursue that case for the consumers just to make it easy and the whole idea underlying it is that if they drop their cases against the government the government will drop their cases against the corporations. Yeah, the corporations may win back billions of dollars but if they face the possibility of having to pay back to customers a billion and 300 million, it might persuade them to just give it up.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/25/us-posta...n-oil.html

Terry

I wonder if anyone has tried liquid propellant for projectile weapons? Wouldn’t that be cool? Load the normal way, but instead of 21 grains of Red Dot, it used 5 ml of Liqui-pulshion.

Could be or crazy?

[FPC News] FPC to Appeal Misguided Texas Carry Ruling

<p><strong>FORT WORTH, TX</strong><span style="font-weight: 400;"> (March 24, 2026) – Judge Pittman's misguided </span><a href="https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/8905/attachments/original/1774389472/2026.03.24_066_OPINION.pdf?1774389472"><span style="font-weight: 400;">opinion</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> upholding Texas's carry ban across wide swaths of public life-including at sporting events-isn't even in the same ballpark as the Constitution. His decision is nothing but foul balls, so we've directed our attorneys to appeal this case to the Fifth Circuit without delay. We're confident the law and the Supreme Court's binding precedent will prevail-and this insane ruling will be reversed.</span></p>


http://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-to-app...rry-ruling