HR 347 Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011

[Belmont31R]

It appears this bill, which has passed both the Senate and House, criminalizes protests which are deemed disruptive to anyone recieving Secret Service protection or an event deemed to be of national importance (the SuperBowl was given such status).



H.R. 347 would amend the federal criminal code to impose criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly enters any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority. The bill defines "restricted buildings or grounds" as a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of:



(1) the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds;

(2) a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or

(3) a building or grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance.

http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/1/hr347


While the first half seems obvious (jumping the WH fence is not a good idea) the second half seems to leave a lot of room for interpretation and abuse.

Oh and only 3 representatives voted against it. I bet you can guess who one of the 3 is...;)

Here is a RT article on this bill... http://rt.com/usa/news/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/


Ive already contacted my Rep asking him why he voted on this and exactly who gets to decide what becomes an event of national importance.



The link to the GOP site listed above doesn't mention the rest of what is made a criminal act:



Ԥ 1752. Restricted buildings or grounds
10 ‘‘(a) Whoever—
1 ‘‘(1) knowingly enters or remains in any re-
2 stricted building or grounds without lawful authority
3 to do so;
4 ‘‘(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or
5 disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business
6 or official functions, engages in disorderly or disrup-
7 tive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any re-
8 stricted building or grounds when, or so that, such
9 conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly con-
10 duct of Government business or official functions;
11 ‘‘(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede
12 or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government busi-
13 ness or official functions, obstructs or impedes in-
14 gress or egress to or from any restricted building or
15 grounds; or
16 ‘‘(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical
17 violence against any person or property in any re-
18 stricted building or grounds;
19 or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as
20 provided in subsection (b)


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr347ih.pdf

[montanadave]

So don't we already have laws against trespass in every state?

[Belmont31R]

So don't we already have laws against trespass in every state?


Yeah but this is like a super duper trespass bill and slips in wording about disorderly conduct impeding a government function. I immediately thought about when Pelosi was walking around with the gavel and all the hooplah that day. I guess all those people could be charged with impeding a government function.



engages in disruptive conduct within such proximity to any restricted building or grounds


Just edit the wording for clarity and this seems like it could be stretched to include any activity the government doesn't like if you're near their official function and some measure of even the slightest disruption can be proven. And "proximity" is not trespassing. I can be in the proximity of something and still on public property.

[Jack-O]

I guess we will have to assume we are breaking the law all the time. should make things simpler for everyone.

there are so many laws at this point the legal maxim of "ignorance of the law which one is bound to know is excuse for no man" would seem to apply. there is no way one can know all the laws in this country so breaking a law you are not likely to know about would seem to have as an affirmative defense "ignorance"

Pretty soon people will realize that they are all criminals or can be declared criminals for anything and they will start to change to a criminal mindset.

[Dienekes]

Sort of like a recent Mel Gibson movie (in which he's a MA cop whose whistleblower daughter gets killed)--"Everything in Massachusetts is illegal."

I live a pretty boring life, but doubtless I am guilty of some crime or other within minutes of rising each morning. "Mala prohibita" covers a lot of territory. Very useful to aspiring tyrants, no? :jester:

[montanadave]

Seems like they're just trying to codify what is essentially SOP already. The last time then vice-president Cheney flew into town to go fly-fishing, the local gendarmes and secret service chased off folks standing along the road from the airport who were simply holding protest signs.

How much of this current legislation is driven by the kerfuffle prior to this year's Super Bowl when the Teamster's were making noise about trying to gum up the works? I suspect this might have less to do with shielding public figures from public protest and more to do with insuring that unions, protest groups, etc. can't screw up large sporting and entertainment events which generate HUGE amounts of revenue for the companies hosting/sponsoring these functions.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Seems like they're just trying to codify what is essentially SOP already. The last time then vice-president Cheney flew into town to go fly-fishing, the local gendarmes and secret service chased off folks standing along the road from the airport who were simply holding protest signs.

How much of this current legislation is driven by the kerfuffle prior to this year's Super Bowl when the Teamster's were making noise about trying to gum up the works? I suspect this might have less to do with shielding public figures from public protest and more to do with insuring that unions, protest groups, etc. can't screw up large sporting and entertainment events which generate HUGE amounts of revenue for the companies hosting/sponsoring these functions.


You have as much chance of a Dem lead government using this against unions and protestors as having big city mayors actually enforce the law against OWS. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

I'm sure they can find a way to use it against the Tea Party though, just like the TEA party groups keep getting their tax exempt status messed with. If a GOP govt tried to use this against a union protest, you can't image how the left would scream.

[montanadave]

It's also likely a preemptive move to allow the feds to drop a lid over the respective national conventions of both major parties this summer and insure that nary a dissenting voice is heard within earshot of any news cameras.

[Moose-Knuckle]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Yeah, who needs that???

:suicide:

[glocktogo]

I wonder if any of them are gonna realize it was all their fault, when the mobs show up with pitch forks and torches? :(

[Sensei]

Yeah but this is like a super duper trespass bill and slips in wording about disorderly conduct impeding a government function. I immediately thought about when Pelosi was walking around with the gavel and all the hooplah that day. I guess all those people could be charged with impeding a government function.





Just edit the wording for clarity and this seems like it could be stretched to include any activity the government doesn't like if you're near their official function and some measure of even the slightest disruption can be proven. And "proximity" is not trespassing. I can be in the proximity of something and still on public property.

Actually, the number of people under Secrete Service protection is relatively small. It includes POTUS and family, VP and family, major POTUS candidates, and retired POTUS (lifetime thru Clinton; 10 yrs for all others), and visiting heads of state. People like Pelosi are protected by US Capital Police and would not be affected by this law. Hillary gets SS protection while at home but Diplomatic Security Service while performing duties as Sec. of State.

This law does not bother me that much since it seems to protect a very limited number of people and events.

[glocktogo]

Actually, the number of people under Secrete Service protection is relatively small. It includes POTUS and family, VP and family, major POTUS candidates, and retired POTUS (lifetime thru Clinton; 10 yrs for all others), and visiting heads of state. People like Pelosi are protected by US Capital Police and would not be affected by this law. Hillary gets SS protection while at home but Diplomatic Security Service while performing duties as Sec. of State.

This law does not bother me that much since it seems to protect a very limited number of people and events.

And whom exactly designates these events and people? The number may be small today, but what about tomorrow?

Moose-Knuckle was spot on. Who decided that these so-called "leaders" should be protected from political messages of discontent? :(

[Sensei]

And whom exactly designates these events and people? The number may be small today, but what about tomorrow?

Moose-Knuckle was spot on. Who decided that these so-called "leaders" should be protected from political messages of discontent? :(

As for your first question, the law is specific to people under USSS protection. I am also curious as to who determines the events and will hold my criticism until I get an answer to this question.

I have no problem with messages of political discontent as long as it is not in the forms of actions that impede legitimate government functions. Protesting in a restricted area (on the field during the Superbowl, on the lawn of the WH, or on the stage of a national convention) is not a lawful assembly since it would disrupt a legit function.

[Suwannee Tim]

This is an anti-heckler bill. I have been tossed out from two political rallies for heckling. It's obnoxious but shouldn't be a felony. Under current law the hecklers are ordered to leave and if they don't they are arrested for trespass.

[Belmont31R]

As for your first question, the law is specific to people under USSS protection. I am also curious as to who determines the events and will hold my criticism until I get an answer to this question.

I have no problem with messages of political discontent as long as it is not in the forms of actions that impede legitimate government functions. Protesting in a restricted area (on the field during the Superbowl, on the lawn of the WH, or on the stage of a national convention) is not a lawful assembly since it would disrupt a legit function.



The ACTUAL law says within proximity to.

[Sensei]

The ACTUAL law says within proximity to.

In that case, I agree that the law goes overboard in its provisions. Thank you for pointing that out.

[Spiffums]

Who would enforce this trespass law? No one enforces the state and local trespass laws.