It looks like the pro-gun lobby is treating us to another “you can’t make this stuff up” moment.
In a new action alert from the group that calls itself Grass Roots North Carolina, recipients are informed that there is a nefarious plot underway to “hamstring gun rights groups.”
The supposed plotters? It’s those dastardly leftists at the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. These are the same radicals who’ve given the nation scores of conservative-to-middle-of the road proposals on everything from the “Insurable Interests Amendment to the Uniform Trust Code” to the “Transboundary Pollution Reciprocal Access Act.”
And their action? Developing something called the “Uniform Protection of Charitable Assets Act.” GRNC is convinced that such a law “would give gun control groups the chance to harass gun rights groups – even to the point of driving them out of business.”
Now, admittedly, the uniform laws commissioners have advanced plenty of flawed ideas over the years. And. Indeed, there may well be some problems with the new proposal (though from the description and early drafts it seems like a pretty straightforward consumer protection effort). But, “drive the gun groups out of business”? Please. The members of the groups advancing the law includes well-known right-wing lawyer, James Bopp.
Here, though, is the really funny part:
In the action alert, GRNC claims that the proposed law would encourage gun control groups to file complaints with an Attorney General,
who could then begin an investigation if he ‘has reason to believe’ it is necessary. Note that ‘reason to believe’ is an absurdly low burden of proof, and the resulting investigation could even result in the AG subpoenaing membership lists of organizations.”
Got that? “Reason to believe” is “an absurdly low burden of proof.”
Now, check out the so-called “Castle Doctrine” bill – the gun lobby’s proposal that has already passed the state Senate this year. What would you guess is the standard in the bill governing a gun owner’s use of deadly force (i.e. shooting someone) in “any place he or she has the lawful right to be” when defending him or herself against another’s “imminent use of unlawful force”?
There are actually several, but the catchall is this:
He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.”
In other words, according to GRNC, “reasonable belief” is reason enough to shoot someone, but not for the Attorney General to investigate malfeasance by a charity.
Very funny and very depressing.