Congress Constitution Rights Truth

Congress’s Behavior Police To Register Potential Future Criminals

By KrisAnne Hall

The TAPS Act is not the solution to gun violence many members of Congress are professing it to be. The unlimited and arbitrary authority this Act bestows upon an unaccountable bureaucracy of 24 people, combined with the language of double-speak and contradictions creating loopholes allowing completely unsupervised and unchecked authority, is reminiscent of the Sedition Act of 1798.

The TAPS act will create a brand new bureaucracy under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security. A non-elected bureaucrat will be authorized by Congress to appoint 23 other non-elected bureaucrats to “identify individuals who are exhibiting patterns of concerning behavior” and then to “manage” those Americans.

The sole purpose of this bureaucracy of 24 will be to create State and federal behavioral policing body ruling over the perceived behavior of the American people — a KGB-style agency not only monitoring the behavior of Americans, but also functioning as judge, jury, and executioner.

This Act mandates the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a Joint Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management Task Force: a 24 member bureaucracy consisting of one government employee (level GS-15 or above) and 23 people from non-governmental organizations of the Secretary’s choosing. Not a single member of this 24 person bureaucracy will be elected by the people, therefore the people will retain no control whatsoever over the actions or activity of this newly created bureaucracy that will possess, by Congressional consent, an enormous amount of arbitrary and unchecked power over the people (see §4(a)).

The sole purpose of this task force is “identifying individuals who are exhibiting patterns of concerning behavior” and create a power to control those people on a federal and local level (§3(2)). This Act contains no clear definition of “concerning behavior.” As a matter of fact, the Act relies upon the Task Force (24 non-elected bureaucrats) to first define “concerning behavior” and then empower the “monitors” tasked with “identifying individuals” that exhibit that behavior.

According to (§3(2)(a)) no actual criminal act must take place to invoke the power this bureaucracy creates. A Federal or State agent must only believe an individual is “interested” in committing their definition of “concerning behavior” to summon this new and undefined power to action.  The DHS will then be “empowered” to implement these arbitrary rules with no acknowledgement of any of the rights of the people. 

To take the legal-eeze off it, this is intended to create a registry of people who may commit crimes at some unspecified and unknown time in the future. This registry will then be used to begin a step-by-step usurpation of their individual rights, from the assumption of innocence and due process to the 1st and 2nd Amendments and more.

Once a State or federal gent has identified an American believed to be interested in some kind of concerning behavior, §3(2)(b) authorizes the bureaucracy to empower these agents to investigate and gather information from multiple sources (sources remain undefined in this Act) on this individual American to find “articulable facts” supporting whether this person is truly exhibiting an “interest” in committing “concerning behavior.”

The 4 th Amendment requires the government to obtain a warrant based upon probable cause (not articulable facts), supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the places to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Under the 4 th Amendment, it is impossible for this Task Force to empower any government agent to do what Congress has authorized it to do. But the Act makes no mention of the 4 th Amendment or the government’s requirement to respect and secure the rights of the people.  According to §3(2)(c) of this Act, after the bureaucracy has compiled its “articulable facts” by circumventing the 4th Amendment’s requirements on government, the bureaucracy is now empower an government agent to “manage” the threat of “concerning behavior.” There is no definition within the Act for the word “manage.” However, the “Powers of the Task Force” are defined in §4(f) as follows:

“Any member of the Task Force may, if authorized by the Task Force, take any action which the Task Force is authorized to take by this section.”

While there are no guidelines created by Congress on how this bureaucracy is supposed to define “manage” or “identify” the behavior of Americans, §2 of the Act establishes that the Task Force will create its own “guidelines and best practices” in order to devise a “national standard” of action.  Therefore, it seems indisputable through §2 and §4(f) that any member of the Task Force can take any action it chooses as long the Task Force will establish the guidelines and practices for such action. The only limit of a government agent and the agency as a whole, rests solely upon the whim of the individual bureaucrat and the bureaucracy to limit itself.  There’s not a lot of history suggesting that would happen.

No Real Congressional Oversight

Congress retains no real authority to check, balance, limit, modify, or control the exercise of power created by this bureaucracy.  The only requirement for this new bureaucracy is to operate as the behavioral police in America and after one year the Secretary (the GS-15 government employee) will submit a report to Congress telling Congress what they have been doing for the past year. The Act then requires DHS to report to Congress once a year every subsequent year on how the guidelines are working, not as a check and balance.  

A deceived member of Congress may attempt to assert that the only authority of the bureaucracy is to make “suggestions to Congress” as to what the proper course of action should be. However, that assertion can be seen as pure error by reading §3(2)(c) of this Act.

A deceived member of Congress may believe that this federal bureaucracy will have no power over the State and local police powers. However §8 of this Act establishes that federal grant money will be given to local jurisdictions which will undeniably establish the power for this Bureaucracy to control local and State authorities once they accept that money. So just as with the Department of Education and so many other federal agencies, if the States submit to federal authority, they’ll get the money. Most to all States will. (Surely the American people recognize this sleight of hand by now!)

A deceived Supreme Court, upon legal challenge, will likely fail to recognize this Act to be vague and full of self-defining authority for a non-elected bureaucracy. SCOTUS has long held great deference to federal agencies and their agents to define their own authority and procedures when Congress leaves holes in the laws.

The Constitution delegates no authority to Congress to fund, recommend, or create a behavioral police for the people. The writing of this Act and the Act’s website proves that every co-sponsor of this Bill knows this as fact! First, the Act makes no mention of due process, the rights of the people, nor any reliance upon or limit established by the Constitution of the United States.

Secondly, if you go to the Bill’s website and click on the hyperlink “Constitutional Authority Statement” the link takes you back to a copy of the Bill text, with no statement of authority whatsoever. The Constitution is not what the foundation for this Act, but fear of guns on the left and fear of terrorists on the right.

So, with the passage of this Act, Congress will create a new bureaucracy who will be empowered to create its own guidelines and procedures on how it will operate; and to define, identify, and enforce government control upon its self-defined “concerning behavior” of individuals in America — complete autonomous, arbitrary, self-defined authority resting in the hands of bureaucrats elected by no one, and controlled by no one.

This Act, on its face, violates the 4th , 5th , 6th , and 8th Amendments. But as in every arbitrary law, the whole truth of its offense to the rights of the people cannot be fully known until the law is put into action. If this Act is used as some members of Congress profess, it is highly likely that execution of this Act will violate large swaths of the Constitution — including the 1st , 2nd , 4th , 5th , 6th , 7th , 8th , 9th , and 10th Amendments. Constitution and the rights of the people be damned, the bureaucrats will have their power under the illusion of keeping people safe — always the justification for taking away rights.

Members of Congress are championing this Bill as the “be all and end all” solution to gun violence in America, yet the Bill does not even once mention the words “gun” or “ammunition.” It should be clear now that the TAPS Act is not about gun control at all, it is about people control. It will target any American who voices, types, or indicates a thought toward questioning government policy, people, or power. (See the FBI Memo defining and identifying the “new” standard for domestic terrorist.)

How any politician who professes a knowledge of the Constitution or professes a love for America, her people, and their rights could ever back this insidious piece of legislation is completely beyond my comprehension. And as Patrick Henry said in 1788: “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.”

It’s time for the American people to hold these pretend patriots suspect and tell them to change their vote or change their vocation.

If any person, including members of Congress would like to discuss this with me, my door is open. My website:

KrisAnne Hall is a former biochemist, Russian linguist for the US Army, and former prosecutor for the State of Florida. KrisAnne also practiced First Amendment Law for a prominent Florida non-profit Law firm. KrisAnne now travels the country teaching the foundational principles of Liberty and our Constitutional Republic. KrisAnne is the author of 6 books on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, she also has an internationally popular radio and television show and her books and classes have been featured on C-SPAN TV. KrisAnne can be found at

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS

Constitution Guns Rights Second Amendment Truth

Presidents Day Open Letter: Historical Case For Not Enforcing Laws That Deny the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Open letter to Governors, Attorneys General, the Legislators of these United States and the People along with their Sheriffs and Peace Officers
From KrisAnne Hall, JD

Both Washington State Governor Jay Inslee and Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson have issued letters regarding the State of Washington’s Initiative 1639 and Washington law enforcement officials’ refusal to enforce the measure in part or in total. Similar laws are being passed by legislators and signed into law by the governors of other States, sadly with little protest.

Proponents of Washington’s Initiative 1639 and those critical of the law enforcement officials cite a “duty to the Constitution” and to the “rule of law.” Yet in many respects these laws are built on the circumvention and abdication of the rule of law. The Constitution and its underlying principles define the rule of law. As such, “the rule of law” cannot be synonymous with “the will of the” majority, as Washington’s AG suggests, when the majority’s will advocates the suspension of due process and the revocation of a person’s natural rights (which all officials involved in this debate swore an oath to uphold.)

The Declaration of Independence lays before us the premise and purpose of all governments, past, present, and future. It states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…(emphasis mine)


Sole Purpose of Government: Secure the Rights of All People Equally and Individually

It is evident that the entire purpose of any form of government is to secure the rights of the individual citizens. The Rights our foundational documents refer to are those classified as “inherent rights:” and they consist of life, liberty, property, and the right to personally secure them in the best manner possible.  The most basic of natural rights is the right to self-preservation, to which the natural right to secure property is connected.

No person is secure in their life, if they cannot also personally secure that life and the property upon which life is dependent. If a person is in danger of loss of life, liberty, or property and has not the personal right, along with the individual ability, to secure these essential rights, then each person is dependent upon someone else’s desire to protect them, reducing every person to that of an indentured or tributary slave, indebted in life to those who are tasked with its security.


Origin of Legislative Power: Individual Rights Precede Legislative Power, Therefore Legislative Power Exists Solely To Ensure Individual Rights

The legislator with his delegated responsibility, cannot be exalted above the inherent rights of the individual which he is charged to protect. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because people have legislators who have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused people to entrust legislators with the power to make laws in the first place. So the justification “it was passed by the legislature,” does not and should not override an inherent individual right, even more so when the legislature is admonished by the Supreme Law to not infringe upon said right.

The Definition of “Just Power”: Just Power of Government Secures The Individual’s Rights Above All Other Objectives

Therefore it is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his individually and personally. It is because of this duty to protect the individual’s natural rights that every government in these United States incorporates the requirement of due process for the suspension of these Rights. It is not a just government, nor is an individual’s right secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the comfort or peace of mind of the rest (even if the rest constitutes 60% of the population).


The Definition of “Unjust Power”: Unjust Power is Power Exercised by Government to the Destruction Of the Individual’s Rights

The mere existence of a majority desire does not override the natural rights of the minority. To create and enforce laws merely because the majority (60% of the people) desire the law to be so, absent any regard to personal and individual rights, is nothing more than a tyranny of the majority.

It is through this errant political motivation that history’s greatest injustices have taken place, even here in America. It was once the majority opinion that a minority of people could, by law, be placed in a state of permanent and inherent servitude. It was once the majority opinion that a minority of people could be legally classified as mere property or chattel. It was once the majority opinion that legally enforced physical segregation of the majority from a minority was appropriate. It was once the majority opinion that a minority of Japanese Americans and Hopi Indians could lawfully be imprisoned indefinitely in internment camps without due process.

Americans ought to be learning from these mistakes, not fighting to repeat them. The majority of Americans would agree that a single dictator with the power to oppress all is a wicked and unjust government. Please then explain, how the tyranny of the majority is any different than the despotism of one in the lives of those whose rights are violated?


The “Will of the Majority” is Contrary to the Rule of Law Majority Rule is synonymous with Tyranny of the Majority Not With Security of Rights

The “Rule of Law” is a term that has been understood throughout history to mean a standard to limit the overreach of government and curb lawlessness. It is does not mean the authority of the government to rule over the people. The independent states of America and their central government were created with written Constitutions to maintain a written limited standard for government to prevent the will of the majority and those who govern to usurp the rights of the individual.

The so-called “will of the majority” cannot be synonymous with the rule of law. If that be the case, then those who are disposed to usurp the rights of the people, need only to control the will of the majority; either through manipulations, coercions, fear, or brute force. It is because of this truth of the tyranny of the majority that every government in these United States is required to exist as a republic, not a pure democracy; that every law to be created through equal representation, and is to be governed by and limited to the ultimate purpose of all government — the security of the Rights of the individual through written Constitutions. When any form of government operates contrary to these foundations, that government has exceeded its proper function, acting in direct opposition to its own purpose.

The law has been used to destroy its own objective. It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain, to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. It has converted lawful defense of life, liberty, and property into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense of these essential and natural rights.


When the Laws of Government Operate Contrary to Individual Rights:
  1. Government Is Operating Contrary to Its Sole Purpose
  2. Government Is Not Operating with Just Power
  3. The People Are Not Free

It becomes the duty of all who love and respect the Rights of their children to protect the citizen from the unjust operation of government.

When those entrusted in government to secure the rights of the individuals turn that trust into a tool to deny those rights, it is incumbent upon those who understand the obvious limits of government and the necessity of those limits to stand in opposition to that unjust use of authority; just as those in America’s past, who refused to enforce the Federal Fugitive Slave Act because of its obvious abuse of power and destruction of rights wielded by those legislators who ratified it into law.

Those who have taken an oath to secure the rights of the people, who understand the magnitude of that solemn promise and the unavoidable and tragic consequences of failing to uphold that promise, feel morally compelled to take a stand. How noble an example would American history have if there was just one Sheriff in Montgomery, Alabama who recognized that a law, ratified by legislators, signed by a governor, reflecting the will of the majority, was not a just law after all. What if instead of arresting Mrs. Rosa Parks, that Sheriff refused to enforce a law that deprived an individual of her rights and instead protected those rights, escorting Mrs. Parks, in which ever seat she chose, all the way home? Those, who are dedicated to their just and lawful duty to secure the rights of the people, understand that at these times the “will of the majority” and the distortion of the rule of law’s definition must be resisted.

The right to individually secure our life, liberty, and property is no different than our rights to freedom of speech, freedom to peaceably assemble, or freedom to worship and live out our faith. A law that establishes that a person is prohibited from possessing any degree of property, but especially property essential to the personal security of individual rights, without due process, ought to be seen as arbitrary.  A capricious legislature moved by the tragedy du jour should not be the model for sound and stable government that protects liberty.

If the governments of these United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and every inherent right of the individual.  If they truly wish for a free and strong nation, they will endeavor to sacredly guard all forms of individual property and resist all desires to violate the individual’s right, regardless of the opinion of the majority or the fleeting emotion of the day.

They will not seek to “target the bad guys” by stripping law abiding citizens of their inherent rights and turning otherwise lawful behavior into crimes. Our inherent rights are not killing innocents, so why are our rights targeted? Oppression doesn’t bring safety. Our governments should seek to be a pattern liberty and example of just government so that our posterity may be truly free.

An honorable oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of (name of State), and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of (name of office) to the best of my ability.


Sincerely and In Liberty,

KrisAnne Hall, JD

KrisAnne Hall is a former biochemist, Russian linguist for the US Army, and former prosecutor for the State of Florida. KrisAnne also practiced First Amendment Law for a prominent Florida non-profit Law firm. KrisAnne now travels the country teaching the foundational principles of Liberty and our Constitutional Republic. KrisAnne is the author of 6 books on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, she also has an internationally popular radio and television show and her books and classes have been featured on C-SPAN TV. KrisAnne can be found at

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Democrats Kavanaugh Rights Truth

Eerie Similarities Between Turkey’s Treatment Of Pastor And Democrats’ of Kavanaugh

by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

A mere three weeks ago, the nation witnessed liberal groups and even some Democrat leaders argue that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh did not deserve a presumption of innocence. Still others argued that he did not even deserve the guarantees of due process. They argued — largely for political purposes — that the mere accusation alone without any evidence to back it up was enough to destroy him.

For the conservative and traditionalist Americans, the contention was simply absurd, but many failed to see matters in the same light and passionately called for the disqualification of the judicial nominee simply based on the mere accusation of sexual assault, despite the absence of any corroborating evidence in support of the charges. The discussion was, quite frankly, surreal.

Separately, on Oct. 12 America witnessed another set of surreal events when American Pastor Andrew Brunson was released from house arrest and allowed to leave Turkey for the first time since being detained in 2016. By Saturday, Brunson was in the White House thanking President Donald Trump for his interventions and openly praying that God’s wisdom fall upon the President. Make no mistake, this was Trump’s doing — which the media largely downplayed.

Interestingly, the evils that befell Brunson in Turkey are the same ones against which conservative Americans have been preciously guarding in protecting now-Justice Kavanaugh. America is based on certain rights, including a presumption of innocence.

In October 2016, Brunson and his wife, Norine, were summoned in Turkey to renew their visas. Upon their arrival, they were arrested. Their due process rights completely ignored, they were held without even being told what the charges against them were. Norine was released without explanation 13 days later, but Brunson continued to be held.

It would not be until December 2016 when charges were formally brought against Brunson accusing him of being a member of an armed terrorist organization. And in August 2017, those charges were broadened to include charges of espionage, attempting to overthrow the Turkish parliament and government, and attempting change to change the constitutional order of Turkey.

Again, it is important to remember that at no time were any of the charges against Brunson corroborated or was evidenced supplied in support of them. There was no evidence that he was actually a terrorist, and no evidence that he, in any way, tried to overthrow the government.

No evidence at all. Just an accusation. Sound familiar?

More Original Content On Patreon

But those things do not matter because in Turkey. They do not have America’s Constitution and heritage of rights, so it’s okay there to bypass another’s due process rights and to ignore another’s presumption of innocence; precisely the road Democrats have been encouraging Americans to traverse.

Brunson was held as part of a political ploy to use him as a pawn in an international game of chicken. His innocence was immaterial to his captors. Similarly, his release was part of a political ploy to improve relations between that country and the United States. Again, his guilt or innocence was immaterial. The only thing that mattered was the benefits to the Turkish government secured by his imprisonment and subsequently, by his release.

Many argue that the status of civil liberties in the United States is far removed from those in Turkey. I agree. But if Americans’ civil liberties are protected, it is only because Americans demand that due process rights and innocence presumptions be honored.

The road Democrats and the Kavanaugh protestors would put us on, although seemingly long, point directly to the reproduction of the events in Turkey here in the United States. And Americans can ill afford to take even one baby step in that direction.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through to arrange a lecture or book signing.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Constitution Guns Rights Second Amendment Trump

The Left’s War On Guns Becomes A War On Women

Rod Thomson

New York City and other leftist cities and states are making it almost impossible for a woman to purchase even the most minimal of defensive measures — leaving them exposed and at the mercy of violent, stronger male criminals with no way to even the odds.

This may not be the intent, but the recoiling of leftists at allowing Americans to own anything that might resemble a weapon is creating the perverse result that women have a hard time finding any defensive tools.

This is where the nonsense notion of keeping all “weaponry” out of the hands of law-abiding citizens has gone — and it is led there by the overwrought reactions to guns.

A friend whose daughter recently graduated from college in New York and moved into the City, realized she was not in a very good neighborhood. She wanted to find some way of protecting herself, so she tried to order online some mace or pepper spray — anything of that nature — and was told they cannot deliver to New York City. Mace is illegal period. Pepper spray is not totally illegal, but New York makes such items very difficult to get through myriad regulations.

There are few things as inherently defensive in nature as pepper spray. Yet it turns out there are several states that have the same types of laws in place, including Illinois, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and New Jersey. This list also includes cities such as Baltimore, Chicago, Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia — all of which have high rates of violent crimes being committed by men and yet leave their women in challenging situations to protect themselves.

Because again, pepper spray is not only inherently defensive, it is largely purchased and carried by women for self-defense. And yet the loudest paragons of the #MeToo movement put up major roadblocks for women to obtain such basic self-defense.

Please Help Us Fight For Foundational American Values!

So this talented, pretty young woman moving to NYC is completely at the mercy of men (armed or not) bent on evil, and on the response time of police — once they are called. Like so many other women in all these cities and states, she too easily can find herself at the mercy of powerful criminals, and her own government deprives her of the reasonable ability to defend herself.

There are many examples of vulnerable women in these cities turning to wasp spray and other items for defense, despite the bulky size of those canisters. That’s how desperate they are to be able to defend themselves. Of course by reporting this, places like New York may decide that only licensed pest control professionals can buy and operate wasp spray.

Even if you grant the best of intentions by the Democratic lawmakers running these states and cities, it’s almost as though they purposely ignore the most obvious weapon most men have on women: superior size and strength. If every weapon of every kind were magically removed from planet, most men would still have the ability to physically take advantage of most women at any time.

Like us on Facebook

The leftist retort to this is the police. Well that thin blue line that stands between the bad guys and the rest of us is imperative and most of them do yeoman’s work. But they are definitionally not for individual self-defense unless there is a cop for each person. They are by necessity reactive. It’s what 911 is for. You call, they respond.

So the police cannot be the self-defense that women need, meaning most women are left defenseless in these cities and states.

The equalizers for women have always been weapons, from guns to mace to pepper spray. Yet these equalizers are either banned or made very difficult to obtain.

These items are not protected by the Second Amendment, so they can be — constitutionally, if foolishly — banned or made very difficult to obtain. Guns cannot be banned. But they can be made so difficult to obtain that they are practically speaking banned — for law-abiding residents.

That will be Part II: One man’s ultimately fruitless journey into the endless bowels of obtaining a gun permit in New York City.

Subscribe to our Revolutionary Youtube

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever, and a lot of sources are not trustworthy.  is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time from good sources.


Constitution Guns Rights Truth

The Reasoned Response To Mass School Shootings

Rod Thomson

With 17 people murdered Wednesday at a Florida high school in yet another mass shooting at a public place, the immediate reaction in the media and the left has been predictable. The go-to phrase from comedian Chelsea Handler, newspaper columnist Jessica Valenti and SiriusXM Radio executive Norm Ornstein — and now thousands of others — is that Republicans and Second Amendment defenders “have blood on their hands.”

This is a despicable response, of course, but par for about everything from the left nowadays. Worse, it does nothing to actually limit future atrocities. There is no compassion in that. But there is effective compassion in a well-reasoned response that almost assurdedly would save lives.

Plenty of Americans are not being despicable about the issue, but given an enormous amount of emotions and misinformation, they are really not sure how to respond to these horrible events.

So here’s a basic, reasoned walk-through toward what may be the only substantive structural action to be taken that could make a dent in these mass shootings.


The killers

The first place to look at preventing these mass killings is the people committing the mass killings. Sure, it seems obvious, but not to a chunk of people apparently. The problem is people killing people, using guns, trucks, occasionally bombs and so on.

One of the commonalities of mass shooters is that they were known ahead of time to either be mentally ill or violent and potentially dangerous. This is the argument for background checks. State by state, laws on gun ownership are quite different. There are laws prohibiting felons from owning guns, the mentally ill from owning guns and so on.

Our Revolutionary Youtube Channel

There is merit to some of these. Felons in many states lose their right to vote, too. The idea is that when you commit a crime and are convicted, you forfeit some of your rights. Jail takes your freedom away. Society can also take away your right to vote and own a weapon.

The mentally ill is trickier because there is no clear distinction, such as being a felon or not being a felon. How mentally ill is mentally ill enough to lose a Constitutional right? Are there simple conditions that could trigger a lost right? Is bipolar enough? Is depression? At what levels? It can feel a bit arbitrary, but worth exploring. Perhaps if you have been institutionalized for some minimum amount of time.

But even if these sorts of measures worked well — and it is hard to know measurably because we can’t know what mass shootings might have happened — they remain far from perfect. The Sandy Hook shooter could not own guns because he could not pass a background check. But his mom was a legal gun owner and he took her guns and committed the atrocity. No reasonable person suggests we should take rights from the family members of a potentially dangerous person.

So while identifying potential threats may be worthwhile, it is far from a solution.


The places

Now, from who commits the crimes to where they commit the crimes, we have more clear data points.

According to a research report from the Crime Prevention Research Center, 98.4 percent of mass shootings from 1950 through July 10, 2016 were committed in gun-free zones. Only 1.6 percent occurred where citizens are allowed to carry firearms on their person. The CPRC uses the FBI’s definition of a mass shooting — excluding gang activity, for instance.

Even the left-leaning Politifact rated Florida House Speaker Richard Corcoran half true when he said “Most of these mass shootings take place in (areas) where you’re not allowed to have a concealed weapons permit.” And their half false was because they quibbled over the definition of how many killed constitutes a “mass killing” — essentially changing it from the FBI definition to include gang activity, etc. Pretty weak gruel to make it half false. It wasn’t.

We’ll get into some more further down but the stats are fairly clear when good criteria is used. It should not be shocking that even a mentally unstable person is going to take the path of least resistance if he is looking to kill large numbers of people. It’s not likely to be a police station.

This is no small point, because it marks the demarcation between the responses.


The failed response to school shootings

The structural response from Democrats after every one of these is to restrict gun ownership. Not all are attention-seeking bomb-throwers like Chelsea Handler.

But as we see in individual cities and states, no amount of restriction is ever enough because this doesn’t really go after the problem. Cities that ban handguns have enormously high crime rates from handguns because criminals don’t obey the laws.

Shouldn’t still need to be said, but it does: Gun laws only affect people who obey laws. By definition, that excludes murderers and mass killers. So restricting gun ownership by law really only impacts people who are not going to be mass killers. It’s no surprise that this method has not worked in the cities with the most restrictive gun laws.

Taken to its extreme, gun law advocates would relieve Americans of virtually all of their guns — and by extension, their Second Amendment rights. Criminals and even some of the mentally ill, however, would still have guns. So would the government — which of course was the Framers’ primary fear and driving cause for the Second Amendment.

Further, gun restrictions have been in place to their fullest effect at the site of virtually ever mass shooting. Let’s just take Florida’s mass shootings. Wednesday’s murders were at a public high school; a gun-free zone. Before that, was the Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando, also a well labeled gun-free zone. Before that was the Fort Lauderdale Airport shootings; another gun-free zone. Go through the mass shootings in the United States. With few exceptions, almost all were in gun-free zones.

This is telling, but not to those who myopically respond with wanting only more gun control.


The reasoned response to school shootings

So if proactively trying to identify potential mass killers is a step — but far from a solution — and banning guns seems to be more of a beacon then a prevention, then what might be the answer?

The opposite of being a beacon. If banning guns is an inducement, plentiful guns in the hands of trained, law-abiding citizens may well act as a repellent. And in fact, the data suggests it already has.

In broad terms, the number of concealed carry handgun permits soared under President Obama — because Americans feared they were going to lose their Second Amendment rights — while at the same time murder rates dropped. This is the opposite of what a gun control advocate would predict.

Americans with legally concealed weapons nearly tripled from 2007 to 2015, while murder rates fell from 5.6 per 100,000 people to 4.2, or a whopping 25 percent decrease, according to the report from the Crime Prevention Research Center. If not causal, certainly corollary and suggests more guns in law-abiding hands are, at the very least, not the problem.

At the state level, Florida’s homicide rate per person dropped from 36 percent above the national average to 4 percent below after enacting right-to-carry laws. After Texas’ law went into effect, murder rates fell 50 percent faster than the national average the following year; rape rates fell 93 percent and assaults were down 250 percent faster in the second year. Very compelling numbers and repeated in myriad jurisdictions.

On the flip side, states that do not have right-to-carry laws  — disarm their citizens in public — have higher crime rates in general and 11 percent higher violent crime rates per person than the national average.

There is also considerable evidence when communities enact concealed carry laws that crime goes down. This all makes sense. Criminals are less likely to commit crimes if they think there is a reasonable chance they will be shot.

While most mass killings are not committed by run-of-the-mill criminals, but by mentally ill, emotionally damaged people, they may not respond in the same way — although some percentage are likely to. So then, if we can’t identify them well enough and they may not respond to deterrents like normal criminals, what to do?

Minimize the deaths. How? Specifically for schools, which are continual targets, allow teachers and school administrators to carry concealed weapons on campus. If this horrifies some people, they are not thinking it through.

We give teachers enormous authority to mold children’s minds and to protect them in school. We allow teachers to legally carry handguns just as any other American. But we don’t let these same trusted members of society carry their handguns into schools where they could actually protect defenseless students — the very locations where so many mass killings happen. It takes the most diligent police several minutes to get to a school from the time a shooting starts, during which time we have seen how much carnage can take place. Teachers and administrators are on site and can provide a nearly immediate response.

Do we think some will just go crazy and start mass shooting? Seriously? But even if that happened, such a teacher would likely do it anyway. If, however, other teachers or administrators are armed, they could limit the number of deaths.

If we could have a reasonable discussion on mass shootings and not partisan hysteria, this is a major step we should be able to agree on — and that would reduce the number of deaths.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever, and a lot of sources are not trustworthy.  is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time from good sources.


Constitution Rights Truth

More Rights Than Free Speech Need Protection

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

In America, when someone is criticized for kneeling during the national anthem, or when someone speaks a perceived offensive truth, many Americans are quick to aggressively defend our right to freedom of speech as an essential “foundational principle” of America.

There’s no denying the importance of free speech. But too many people apparently forget that America has more than one essential foundational principle.  

  1.  The Right of the People to keep & bear arms is an essential foundational principle.
  2.  The Right of the People to be secure in their property from government defined search and seizure is an essential foundational principle.
  3.  The Rights of the people to due process, a trial by a jury of our peers, and to be secure from cruel punishments are essential foundational principles.

Yet every day, many of the same people so distraught over the loss of free speech, scream for the removal of our essential foundational principle to keep and bear arms.

Every day our federal government violates our right to be secure in our property with searches using fake warrants and seizures through civil asset forfeitures. Yet the vast majority of Americans remain silent about these violations of our essential foundational principles.

Every day Americans are held in government custody in direct violation of our essential foundational principles. Every day federal judges actively and cruelly deny Americans’ Rights contrary to our essential foundational principles.

The frequency and degree to which we neglect all other equally essential foundational principles is baffling. Can you imagine the outrage over a politician fighting to outlaw the word “transgender” because it did not exist at the time of the writing of the Constitution? However, that same argument is used to justify outlawing certain firearms. Many Americans also find similar excuses to justify secret court issued warrants, indefinite detentions, and lawless, arbitrary property seizures.

The neglect of any fundamental principle is extremely destructive to the entire foundation of America.  We cannot continue to safeguard one fundamental principle while sacrificing all of the others. We must ensure that all rights for all people are protected in America, not just our personal favorites.

KrisAnne Hall is a former biochemist, Russian linguist for the US Army, and former prosecutor for the State of Florida. KrisAnne also practiced First Amendment Law for a prominent Florida non-profit Law firm. KrisAnne now travels the country teaching the foundational principles of Liberty and our Constitutional Republic. KrisAnne is the author of 6 books on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, she also has an internationally popular radio and television show and her books and classes have been featured on C-SPAN TV. KrisAnne can be found at

Constitution Rights Truth

Rights are Inherent for All, Benefits are Granted to Some

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

Some Americans are confused about the difference between Rights and Benefits. Influenced in part by manipulative politicians and pundits, this confusion has clouded the minds of the unsuspecting.  Here is a typical example of this confusion on Twitter:

How many people have you heard proclaim that there exists a right to healthcare, birth control, abortion, or some other government granted thing? Do they truly not understand what a right is? Are they being deceptive or are they deceived? Those Americans caught up in this deception are chasing after benefits, not rights.  

A Right is something that you possess inherently by the nature of your creation — although protecting that right may come with a cost. It is not confiscated from another on your behalf.  A Benefit is payment or privilege given to you at the cost of another’s property. Money must be confiscated from another citizen in order to pay for a benefit.


Inherent rights are to be protected by government

Samuel Adams, designer of our Constitutional Republic, described rights as being “evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.”

French political philosopher, Frederic Bastiat, wrote with great clarity on the meaning of Rights and how government relates to those Rights:

Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”

Rights aren’t created by legislation. Rights are not granted by government. Rights precede government. Government is created to protect rights.

Artful political leaders deny our Right to keep and bear arms, while at the same time asserting that the benefit of healthcare is a right. Yet, not only does life, the production from that life (property) and the right to that production (liberty) exist prior to governmental organs, but the right to protect those things from forceful taking is inseparable from the rights themselves.

“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.” – Samuel Adams.

“Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?”  Frederic Bastiat

If you must wait for government to protect your life, liberty, or property and are not free to do that yourself, then those items do not belong to you, they belong solely to whomever you have relinquished that right of protection. For if those in government who choose not to protect you, or are unable to protect you when you could otherwise protect yourself, then you are in essence a slave — a ward of the state. You are not free. Your rights are forfeited to those upon whom you depend.


Benefits are given and taken by government whim 

Benefits on the other hand are not inherent and must be taken rather than protected. The gifts of God are rights. The gifts of government, are benefits. Those benefits may fall into the categories of healthcare, subsidies, or any assistances bestowed upon people using money collected from other people, otherwise known as taxes.

A person does not have a right to healthcare paid for by others, that is a benefit. A person does not have a right to welfare or monetary assistance — those are benefits granted by government.

Rights belong to all people, benefits are only available to those who are a part of a defined group, subject to the terms decided upon by others. Rights are not given by government, so they should not be taken by government, but instead protected. Benefits can be given and taken based upon transitory terms and the whims of politics. Benefits have to be agreed to, legislated into existence, and supported by transfer of property. Rights are inherent and must only be recognized and defended. Their existence does not depend on taxes or any other property transfer.

People have a right to life. People have a right to defend life. People do not have a right to birth control, any more than they have a right for someone to buy them a car, pay for their vacation or buy their groceries. Other citizens paying for your birth control is a benefit, not a right. Abortion is taking life from another, and that is contrary to Natural Law and the natural right to life. One cannot be said to have a right to take another life, or cause another life to cease.

The first ten amendments to the Constitution were incorporated to serve as reminders to the American people of the rights that belong to all people as a matter of Natural Law. These first ten amendments do not contain clauses about healthcare, welfare, or prosperity; because if they did, they would be called the Bill of Benefits, not the Bill of Rights.

KrisAnne Hall is a former biochemist, Russian linguist for the US Army, and former prosecutor for the State of Florida. KrisAnne also practiced First Amendment Law for a prominent Florida non-profit Law firm. KrisAnne now travels the country teaching the foundational principles of Liberty and our Constitutional Republic. KrisAnne is the author of 6 books on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, she also has an internationally popular radio and television show and her books and classes have been featured on C-SPAN TV. KrisAnne can be found at