And it should be applied evenly regardless of what kind of advocacy is involved, but we all know how that actually goes.

Career bureaucrats have a definite political lean, and that lean means any gun rights group that oversteps the line will be eviscerated by the IRS while anti-gun groups can get away with anything short of literal murder--and I'm not sold on them not getting a pass for that, too.

But the truth is that a group of nuns who are engaging in anti-gun advocacy sure look like they're crossing that line.

The Sisters of Bon Secours are launching a citywide campaign against gun violence with seven other Catholic congregations in Baltimore,” Catholic News Agency reported Thursday. “The advertisement campaign announced this week features ads inside and outside of city buses and in subway transit stations throughout the city that say “Put the Guns Down. Let Peace Begin With Us.”

That’s meaningless “feel-good” jabber centered around the false premise pejorative “gun violence,” calculated to shift responsibility away from the twisted human operator.

Predators, both private and tyrannical state actors, have no intention of putting down the tools that enable them to dominate and victimize the defenseless. And as for the overwhelmingly peaceable population of gun owners, their being armed deters the violence the sisters are wringing their hands over.

The signs have a QR code that takes folks to a website where the media reports are resources to combat so-called gun violence and links to the archdiocese's gun buyback program.

Of course, we know what good gun buybacks do, but it's pretty clear that this is a fairly substantial outlay of funds to advocate for what is essentially a political position.

Even the neutral-seeming "put the guns down" doesn't differentiate between illegal guns in criminal hands or my Glock 19 in my law-abiding hands.

Now, with that said, the fact that "put the guns down" is a lot more neutral than more explicit advocacy work is likely to get them a pass by the courts. It's unlikely any judge is going to assert that it's explicit enough to strip a group of their non-profit status and risk trampling on the First Amendment.

Yes, it's advocacy and it's anti-gun advocacy, but it's just neutral-sounding enough that they'll likely get away with it.

But, as writer David Codrea notes later in this piece, they don't stop there.

But aside from praying, urging the untrained to handle and transport guns to “buybacks” and sharing the campaign on social media, there’s one other action item the nuns are calling for: “Change the Culture: Advocacy and Education.”

Advocacy for what?

Tell Congress to oppose unregulated concealed weapons. The House Judiciary Committee recently advanced a dangerous bill that would allow nearly anyone to carry a concealed and loaded gun, regardless of state and local laws. H.R.38 and S.65 would enact “constitutional” carry, also known as permitless carry, meaning that individuals do not have to undergo a background check, licensing, or training before carrying a concealed weapon.

So… lobby for national infringements…? That will only affect the “law-abiding”, since nothing in those bills would authorize criminals committing acts of armed violence to carry guns…?

Curious thing that, with the sisters begging for donations by declaring “As a 501(c)3 organization, all donations to BSVM are tax-deductible.”

IRS Exemption requirements say “To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization… may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities…”

I guess this is where you say “define ‘substantial’.” Since we don’t know how much money is involved to encourage people to lobby Congress to codify nationwide citizen disarmament, an interpretation would appear to be subjective.

Codrea notes that some have argued that conservative church leaders should face losing their non-profit status simply because of comments made from the pulpit, but this religious organization is engaged in advocacy outside of the church walls, and they're generally getting a pass.

I agree that how we define "substantial" is important here, but that's also kind of the problem. This allows those career bureaucrats to decide that this isn't quite enough to warrant any kind of action.

However, this is now. This is the era of the second Trump administration, where the president isn't trying to play nice. He's more than willing to walk into the IRS building and start firing people who refuse to actually investigate, should he become aware of the issue.

And this is an issue he needs to be aware of.

It might just be a tiny percentage of their normal expenditures, but I suspect it's not, and I'm tired of seeing people donate money to what they think will be helping the poor or their church, only to see it going toward an effort to trample on their rights.