The New Anti-Protest Law: Unconsitutional?

So they got this new Bill that Obama passed into law:

[quote]Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011”.
Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
§ 1752. Restricted building or grounds
(a) Whoever—
(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;
(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;
(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or
(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is—
(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if—
(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or
(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and
(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.
(c) In this section—
H. R. 347—2
(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area—
(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds;
(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or
(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and
(2) the term ‘other person protected by the Secret Service’ means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.[/quote] … 347enr.pdf

It’s a kind of scary thing the Federal Government via the secret Service now have the power to do:[quote]
What did this magical universally-loved bill say? Well some are calling it the anti-Occupy law and
[color=#FF0000]it allows the government to bring charges against Americans involved in many kinds of political protest at any location the secret service, quote, "is or will be temporarily visiting.[/color]
" So basically if the government wants to shut down a protest, they just send a secret service officer down there to scratch his balls, and then they can start putting people in jail for a year or more.[/quote] … 43728.html
That’s frightening. Who would vote for that?

Makes you wonder if it will be put to the test this week in Ooooooooklahoma:[quote]
CUSHING, Okla. – The President is scheduled to speak in Payne County this Thursday morning. It may be rural Oklahoma, but when it comes to pipelines, it’s the Capitol. The President is expected to talk about energy, though many in that industry are not impressed.

They are even planning to protest his visit, calling it a political ploy more than a genuine interest.[/quote]
Given Obama’s ever increasing in size and scope lie about how much oil the US has, they might be a tad miffed, as one could well imagine.

Mike Cantrell with the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance says, “For the last three years he’s been anti-fossil fuels.”

Mickey Thompson, an energy industry expert and political analyst, says, “He calls our industry an industry of the past and they’d like us to go away.”

The President is expected to mention his support for a pipeline running from Payne County to the gulf; it’s the southern end of the “Keystone XL Pipeline.”

Industry experts say while his support for the southern end is welcome, it’s not needed.

They build pipelines in the country all the time without needing presidential approval.

The President’s “green light” is only needed for approximately 50 feet on the northern end of the pipeline; that segment would cross the Canadian border.

So far the President has delayed that project.

Thompson says, “The President is using this, frankly, as a publicity stunt to say he’s doing something against high gas prices.”

Cantrell says, “We take exception to the hypocrisy of standing before the largest crude oil facility in the world and saying anything about energy.”[/quote]

I hear ya, roughneck. … 1959.story

Oddly enough, this came out today as well.

But I think they ALL should be there. :raspberry: :thumbsdown:

J.D. -
Is this the pic you were looking for?

Yeah, I’ve seen that one, but in this case, the present Congress should be standing on it. :raspberry:

I fail to see how this new bill is a problem…protesters do not need to go into restricted areas. They can protest outside of those areas. In fact, I’m surprised that this bill is new…I would have thought it would have been put into place ages ago.

Actually, I believe the restricted area follows whomever the Secret Service is protecting.

A bit more clarification on the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011:

he new bill specifically addresses certain trespassing violations in D.C., which currently do not fall under the remit of federal law (i.e.,
[color=#FF0000] HR 347 now makes it a federal issue if you trespass onto White House grounds[/color]
). The only other significant change in the bill is a shift in language, which will make it easier to prosecute those who are found to unlawfully have entered these restricted areas. [color=#FF00FF]The law used to say that the person must have entered the area “knowingly” and “willfully.” HR 347, however, scrapped the “willfully,” which essentially now renders it a crime to remain in a restricted area, even if you do not know that it’s illegal for you to be there.[/color]

“By striking out ‘willfully’ they make it easier to prosecute under ‘knowingly,’” explained Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund. She noted with some exasperation that the campaigns focusing energies against HR 347 miss the bigger, ongoing fight for basic free speech and threats to it, as this specific law is only an amendment to laws that were primarily established in 2006. For Verheyden-Hilliard,
[color=#008000]HR 347 is best understood as the government “looking at the tools in their arsenal and polishing them up” in time for major, protest-drawing summits and political conventions this year.[/color]

This is not to say that free speech issues raised by HR 347′s passage should be ignored, but rather contextualized against a backdrop where protest and dissent are already consistently treated as illegal.[/quote]Inside that new anti-Occupy bill |

See no protest, hear no protest, be no protest. :raspberry: