H.R. 347 FRBGIA " The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act"

[nemmises5]

[quote]H. R. 347 One Hundred Twelfth Congress
of the
United States of America
AT T H E S E C O N D S E S S I O N
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the third day of January, two thousand and twelve
An Act
To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings
or grounds) of title 18, United States Code.
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’’.
SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDING OR GROUNDS.
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.’’.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate. [/quote]
Sauce:
[URL]http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf[/URL]

what the fuck how did this happen? it already passed.

YouTube video that explains in a little bit clearer terms :

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W38EG0FZZw&feature=share[/media]

[Secrios]

Now I don't know what to do! If I vote Obama, he will fix the energy crisis and get rid of those ignorant republicans for another term; but I will loose all my freedoms to fight evil corporations. I am trapped with one of my biggest desires and my biggest fears!

[Gracie]

Awwww, Obama was doing so good for such a long time. Don't give up now!

[JennyC6]

From my reading of the bill I gather they're merely trying to keep people from trashing fucking city hall again. I don't see any provisions in there that limit one's ability to protest, only their ability to interfere with and tresspass upon government facilities and the workers therein.

[salty peanut]

yeah I don't think this is as bad as you guys are making it out to be

[ExplodingGuy]

Restricted is not equal to public. Restricted being the White House, international summits, et cetera. Read [url=http://www.salon.com/2012/03/07/the_inside_scoop_on_hr_347/]this[/url] to see how sensationalised this is.

[person12]

Oh look another bill overhyped by Libertarians to make Obama look evil guys vote Ron Paul 2012 2016 3016 and 1916

Seriously this is getting annoying. Things are not going great but Obama is not the next hitler and we are not going to live in an Orweillian society.

[Greenen72]

Seriously, there are only 2 things that people can complain about

[quote]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 impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions[/quote]
(If you try to stop people from doing their jobs in or near the building)

[quote]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[/quote]
(If you stop officials from going in our out of a building)

I don't see anything wrong from my totally law-schooled point of view

[Lazor]

the video in the op is a totally great source of information i definitely reccomend watching it lmao

[Shiftyze]

"Pick that can up"

We're getting closer and closer..

[Soda']

[QUOTE=complacently oppressed citizen;35451032]yeah I don't think this is as bad as you guys are making it out to be[/QUOTE]

this generation.

quoted post is going to show up again in 15 years when the american government is literally turned into a zionist cash machine and the constitution is covertly abolished

[QUOTE=Greenen72;35451216]Seriously, there are only 2 things that people can complain about

(If you try to stop people from doing their jobs in or near the building)

(If you stop officials from going in our out of a building)

I don't see anything wrong from my totally law-schooled point of view[/QUOTE]

you realize saying "only two things" doesn't really matter when THOSE ARE TWO REALLY BIG, IMPORTANT THINGS. not a fakepost: Police will be able to use this legislation to bar protestors(see: a group they'll be defining based on a stereotype, whether or not the person is actually engaged in protest activity) from being near government buildings at all(and charge them using it if they won't go away). THAT'S PRETTY BAD.

[Lazor]

you guys wouldn't have survived the actual threat of looming death and destruction your parents had to deal with

[Greenen72]

[QUOTE=Soda;35451334]quoted post is going to show up again in 15 years when the american government is literally turned into a zionist cash machine and the constitution is covertly abolished[/quote]

lmao

[quote]you realize saying "only two things" doesn't really matter when THOSE ARE TWO REALLY BIG, IMPORTANT THINGS. not a fakepost: Police will be able to use this legislation to bar protestors(see: a group they'll be defining based on a stereotype, whether or not the person is actually engaged in protest activity) from being near government buildings at all(and charge them using it if they won't go away). THAT'S PRETTY BAD.[/QUOTE]

[quote]of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and [/quote]

yeah, if you're protesting, don't do it around the president or people with the secret service, and don't do it around some place where people need to get in and out

if you're worried about america turning into the coporate machine that fuels the oil boom from the taxpayers pockets who're brainwashed into the big brother propaganda of oil wars and terrorism, people aren't stupid enough to not actually face a real threat

[Funcoot]

[QUOTE=Greenen72;35451486]yeah, if you're protesting, don't do it around the president or people with the secret service[/QUOTE]

Why?

[Greenen72]

[QUOTE=Funcoot;35451549]Why?[/QUOTE]

Presidents get a bigger personal space :)

[Funcoot]

[QUOTE=Greenen72;35451564]Presidents get a bigger personal space :)[/QUOTE]

Wait, I can't tell if you were being sarcastic.

You forgot to use [img]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4043/4275980331_7cdc41cce4.jpg[/img]

[Greenen72]

Hey guys, I have a brilliant idea. Guys, listen, lets all us Secret Service guys let these guys that are angry at obama about this anti-guns law protest around obama about it, i'm sure nothing bad could happen

[Funcoot]

[QUOTE=Greenen72;35451593]Hey guys, I have a brilliant idea. Guys, listen, lets all us Secret Service guys let these guys that are angry at obama about this anti-guns law protest around obama about it, i'm sure nothing bad could happen[/QUOTE]

It's their right to peacefully assemble in a public area. Stopping protesters from exercising their rights because, "they might do something bad!" is stupid.

[Greenen72]

[QUOTE=Funcoot;35451602]It's their right to peacefully assemble in a public area.[/QUOTE]

It's the president's right to have a safe area around him

[Funcoot]

[QUOTE=Greenen72;35451615]It's the president's right to have a safe area around him[/QUOTE]

Keyword, peacefully.

[editline]6th April 2012[/editline]

Assuming violence is going to occur is stupid and a bullshit reason to pass something like this.

[Greenen72]

[QUOTE=Funcoot;35451625]Keyword, peacefully assemble.

[editline]6th April 2012[/editline]

Assuming violence is going to occur is stupid and a bullshit reason to pass something like this.[/QUOTE]

Assuming violence is going to occur is stupid and a bullshit reason to ban people from carrying their knives onto a plane

[Funcoot]

[QUOTE=Greenen72;35451663]Assuming violence is going to occur is stupid and a bullshit reason to ban people from carrying their knives onto a plane[/QUOTE]

Planes aren't public property.

Anyways, I'll just leave you with the constitution.

[quote=Constitution][b][highlight]Congress shall make no law[/b][/highlight] respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or [b][highlight]abridging[/highlight][/b] the freedom of speech, or of the press; or [b][highlight]the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/highlight][/b][/quote]

This bill effectively squashes one of the rights guaranteed to us in the constitution. Just because you don't believe the current administration will abuse it, doesn't mean they wont, and it definitely doesn't mean a future administration wouldn't.

[editline]6th April 2012[/editline]

I love how everyone on facepunch is afraid to criticize Obama and his administration. If Romney or Santorum proposed a bill like this, facepunch would be up in arms and raising hell.

[Murk]

[QUOTE=Funcoot;35451709]Planes aren't public property.

Anyways, I'll just leave you with the constitution.

This bill effectively squashes one of the rights guaranteed to us in the constitution. Just because you don't believe the current administration will abuse it, doesn't mean they wont, and it definitely doesn't mean a future administration wouldn't.

[editline]6th April 2012[/editline]

I love how everyone on facepunch is afraid to criticize Obama and his administration. If Romney or Santorum proposed a bill like this, facepunch would be up in arms and raising hell.[/QUOTE]

[quote]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 [B]peaceably to assemble[/B], and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/quote]

That's sort of the opposite of "with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct".

[Greenen72]

[quote]knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business [/quote]
Those damned peaceful protesters and disrupting the function of government

[editline]6th April 2012[/editline]

Oh god dammit

[Funcoot]

[QUOTE=Murkrow;35451734]That's sort of the opposite of "with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct".[/QUOTE]

It is simply too vague. A crowd that is being even slightly loud could be implicated of attempting to impede or disrupt an event. It does not disclose any actions are considered disruptive and sets up no real guidelines on proximity. That is how bills like this get abused in the long run.

You could have a perfectly peaceful crowd protesting a few blocks away from a location of official business be considered disruptive and attempting to impede on official business.

[Xenocidebot]

Oh look this thing totally telling me where I can't be, how horrible, I wonder what the purpose is?
Well let's just read what portion of the USC this comes from...

[h2]18 USC Chapter 84 - PRESIDENTIAL AND PRESIDENTIAL STAFF ASSASSINATION, KIDNAPPING, AND ASSAULT[/h2]

And what does "restricted" mean?

[QUOTE](1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area—
(A) [B]of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds;[/B]
(B) of a building or grounds [B]where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting[/B]; or
(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with [B]an event designated as a special event of national significance[/B][/QUOTE]

Okay, so I can't protest on Obama's desk, or on his podium in the middle of a speech, or to the Secret Service.
Fuck, I'm so oppressed.

[Mac2468]

[QUOTE=Shiftyze;35451329]"Pick that can up"

We're getting closer and closer..[/QUOTE]

lmao a hl2 reference
you so clever

[Funcoot]

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35451789]Oh look this thing totally telling me where I can't be, how horrible, I wonder what the purpose is?
Well let's just read what portion of the USC this comes from...

[h2]18 USC Chapter 84 - PRESIDENTIAL AND PRESIDENTIAL STAFF ASSASSINATION, KIDNAPPING, AND ASSAULT[/h2]

And what does "restricted" mean?

Okay, so I can't protest on Obama's desk, or on his podium in the middle of a speech, or to the Secret Service.
Fuck, I'm so oppressed.[/QUOTE]

The bill takes into account proximity, but sets no specific guidelines for it. It does not simply restrict the area within reach of the president. Also, the naming is rather deceptive. I have a hard time believe thing is [b]soley[/b] for the presidents safety. When was the last time a president was attacked by a protester at a protest?

I'm not against protecting the president, I'm against bills with vague language like the one mentioned here. No guidelines for proximity or what is considered disruptive leaves this bill up for extremely liberal interpretation. It's really up to the current administration what is disruptive and what is too close, rather than being clearly stated and set in stone so we don't have dumb issues in the future.

[shian]

Still better than us, its illegal to protest.

[scout1]

The video in the OP is more russia today bullshit, people need to stop citing them.