Federal 'Trespass bill' will criminalize political protests across the country

[rambone]

H.R. 347, which has overwhelmingly passed both the House and the Senate, looks like another step forward for the Police State.

The bill will criminalize getting too close to anyone in government with Secret Service protection, or disrupting "official functions."

Even people accidentally/unknowingly entering a building temporarily occupied by a government official could be in trouble. This could be a hotel or a restaurant, a frothy candidate rally, or in the presence of a foreign dignitary.

Basically the Secret Service will now operate in traveling Constitution-Free Zones.



Goodbye, First Amendment: 'Trespass bill' will make protest illegal

Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.

The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.

Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.

​

Pay attention to U.S. Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI). He's been on my radar since he voted against NDAA and endorsed Ron Paul. So far he is proving to be a friend to liberty, and not another boot-licking Police State Republican.

Later today, we're scheduled to vote on H R 347, which makes it a crime to accidentally get too close to a government official who has Secret Service protection. It also bans protests that disrupt government activities. When will Congress stop acting like a ruling class and start acting like public servants?

If this bill comes to a roll call vote (rather than a voice vote), it's likely to pass with overwhelming support, as it did when it first came through the House in 2011. Only Paul Broun, Ron Paul, and I voted "no" on this bill last February.

-- Justin Amash

 

[rambone]

‘Trespass Bill’ Would Violate Peaceful Assembly Rights

The new legislation would make it a federal offense for anyone to protest or assemble without permission on grounds where the Secret Service is protecting a government official or any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.”

 

[SteveL]

I wonder if it ever occured to congress, that if they actually started doing what the people wanted, you know, stuff like creating more jobs, lowering taxes or whatever it took to improve their communities, that their approval ratings would climb back up and people would find other things to do with their discontent, rather than shooting at them???

Seriously, I don't believe that our government cares about the constitution anymore, as I recall a few years ago, our former prez, Mr. Bush, called the constitution a G..D... piece of paper....or something to that affect...

 

[jbombelli]

I wonder if it ever occured to congress, that if they actually started doing what the people wanted, you know, stuff like creating more jobs, lowering taxes or whatever it took to improve their communities, that their approval ratings would climb back up and people would find other things to do with their discontent, rather than shooting at them???

Seriously, I don't believe that our government cares about the constitution anymore, as I recall a few years ago, our former prez, Mr. Bush, called the constitution a G..D... piece of paper....or something to that affect...

http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-GD-piece-of-paper/

 

[buckstopshere]

http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-GD-piece-of-paper/

Although he didn't say it, his actions make the words true.

 

[LEaSH]

It's an unconstitutional law - it will fall when the first OWS or whoever gets nabbed under this stupid law.

 

[abigbadzebra]

Politicians pass laws to protect themselves and keep themselves in power. Go figure.

 

[level.eleven]

It's an unconstitutional law - it will fall when the first OWS or whoever gets nabbed under this stupid law.

The legislature does not think it is unconstitutional seeing as how it is set to pass.

 

[rambone]

It passed the House 399-3.

Ron Paul and Justin Amash were two of the lone dissenters.

 

[Lex Concord]

H.R. 347, which has overwhelmingly passed both the House and the Senate, looks like another step forward for the Police State.

The bill will criminalize getting too close to anyone in government with Secret Service protection, or disrupting "official functions."

Even people accidentally/unknowingly entering a building temporarily occupied by a government official could be in trouble. This could be a hotel or a restaurant, a frothy candidate rally, or in the presence of a foreign dignitary.

Basically the Secret Service will now operate in traveling Constitution-Free Zones.

I'm sure this, as with all other laws, will only be used with the best of intentions and never abused.

 

[jbombelli]

It passed the House 399-3.

Ron Paul and Justin Amash were two of the lone dissenters.

Look on the bright side.

That's almost 1%.

 

[level.eleven]

Would Mitt Romney sign this bill? You know, the guy who has security guards his entire life.

 

[.356luger]

Lol listen to Rage Against the Machine. FTP

 

[KLB]

It amazes me that this did not get more coverage. Can it withstand a challenge in court?

 

[88GT]

Would you guys be more or less outraged if you knew this wasn't a brand new piece of legislation and that you've been blindly living in the police state it creates for a few years now?

This is what the law looked liked before HB347 amended it:

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons—
(1) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting;
(2) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;
(3) willfully, knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any building or grounds described in paragraph (1) or (2) when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;
(4) willfully and knowingly to obstruct or impede ingress or egress to or from any building, grounds, or area described in paragraph (1) or (2); or
(5) willfully and knowingly to engage in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any building, grounds, or area described in paragraph (1) or (2).
(b) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be punishable by—
(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) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be prosecuted by the United States attorney in the Federal district court having jurisdiction of the place where the offense occurred.
(d) None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section.
(e) As used in this section, 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 when such person has not declined such protection.

I'd have to say that the article quoted in the OP is grossly misrepresenting the amendment. To wit, it says:

Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.

So much for the "knowingly" and "with intent to impede or disrupt" language in the law.

Not that there isn't a whole hell of a lot of room for abuse, but it's not the crack down on free speech demonstrations.

 

[steveh_131]

So much for the "knowingly" and "with intent to impede or disrupt" language in the law.

Not that there isn't a whole hell of a lot of room for abuse, but it's not the crack down on free speech demonstrations.

I'm not so sure I agree.

Original text:

(e) As used in this section, 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 when such person has not declined such protection.

New text:

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.’’.

This bill was originally intended to provide protection to government officials carrying out government business. It goes so far as to consider any building or grounds that contains this official to be 'restricted'.

The new language gives the president the power to offer this same protection and prosecution to anyone he chooses. By doing so, it opens up new avenues for abuse by the government.

How can you know if a person has been offered secret service protection by the president? You really can't. What if you protest at the corporate headquarters of a CEO who has been given this protection?

Are you doing it 'knowingly and willfully'? Kind of hard to prove or disprove. Are you 'disrupting'? Once again, pretty subjective. Sounds to me like it's just one more tactic to bring more charges against people speaking their minds.

 

[Mackey]

Just a "harmless" little bill ... who wouldn't want to protect the executive and officials .... Clearly an opportunity for abuse.

 

[XDdreams]

I find this utterly disgusting. Why was this not put in the mainstream media ? Oh wait, media is a tool of the government. This is a huge stride in instituting a police state. I very much hope the current impeachment process for Obama takes its rightful course. After the crap Leon Panetta pulled last week, blatently admitting treason by the president and sec def, in front of congress. How are you going to tell congress that they have no powers over the president regarding war, that the president takes his orders from NATO and the UN. Last time I checked our constitution wasn't written by NATO or the UN, but by true patriots who formed our country and its fundamental laws. All of this crap is not going to fly, there are to many of us with open eyes.

 

[rambone]

Trespass bill signed 3/8/2012



Obama signs anti-protest Trespass Bill

Only days after clearing Congress, US President Barack Obama signed his name to H.R. 347 on Thursday, officially making it a federal offense to cause a disturbance at certain political events — essentially criminalizing protest in the States.

This explains that the possibilities of prosecuting more people will be opened up with the rewording of the law.

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund tells the International Business Times that the Trespass Bill in its current form “means it's easier to prosecute under 'knowingly,'” instead of both knowingly and willfully, “which is an issue because someone could knowingly enter a restricted but not necessarily realize they are committing a crime.” Speaking with IB Times, Verheyden-Hilliard tries to lay to rest claims that the Constitution will be crippled by the Trespass Bill, but acknowledges that it does indeed allow law enforcement to have added incentive to arrest protesters who could be causing a disturbance.

"[HR 347] has been described as a death knell for the First Amendment, but that isn't supported by the facts," Verheyden-Hilliard adds. "This has always been a bad law."

This points out that the upcoming NATO summit in Chicago would be under Secret Service protection and subject to the Federal Tresspass bill. Protesters face ten years in prison if they step across some invisible line.

The Secret Service serves as the police that protects not just current and former American presidents, but are also dispatched to monitor special events of national significance, a category with a broad cast of qualifiers. In the past, sporting events, state funerals, inaugural addresses and NATO and G-8 Summits have been designated as such by the US Department of Homeland Security, the division that decides when and where the Secret Service are needed outside of their normal coverage.

Although the G-8 Summit originally scheduled for Chicago this spring would have made much of the Windy City a protected area where crimes could easily be tacked on to arrested protesters, the event was moved this week to the presidential retreat at Camp David. In turn, many have suggested that the White House is only going out of their way to limit protesting rights. While a Chicago summit would have meant the Trespass Bill could have been enforced in the same area where thousands of demonstrators were expected to protest, moving the event to a heavily fortified rural location will instead deter protesters from likely coming close atto the meeting at all.

And before you forget, the president can now detain you for getting too close to his front yard, order your assassination if the country considers you a threat and lock you away for life with no charge if you’re alleged to be a terrorist. You, on the other hand, can’t yell obscenities at Newt Gingrich without risking arrest.

 

[rambone]

Judge Napolitano on the Trespass Bill

Judge Napolitano lists 3 potential violations of American rights: (1) Free speech violations, (2) Association violations, (3) the right to petition your government for a redress of grievances.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SGWH3kirzg[/ame]