Has anyone read about HR 347?

[Working Poor]

we cannot turn our backs on the government we need to watch those critters like a hawk in Washington.

 

[Matthew5]

Hmm, can I play Devil's Advocate for a moment? After reading the text of the bill, I'm weighing this against the 1st Amendment. In what way does this violate the 1A?

‘(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;

This to me is somewhat vague. What's a restricted building and why is it restricted in the first place? Obviously we can't just walk into the Oval Office or the Pentagon whenever we choose, so some restrictions make sense. But does this give authority to make private places restricted by the government? The jury is still out for me on this part.

‘(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;

We're guaranteed the right to peaceably assemble. Does 1A gives us the right to impede others and be disruptive to legal government business? E.g. The Glitteratti, the protestors in pink (whatever their name is), throwing a pie in someone's face...

‘(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

Again, impeding proper movement.

‘(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).

Anything wrong with outlawing violence against others?

I just like playing Devil's advocate before I pass final judgment. Does the original article blow things out of proportion? What do ya'll think?

 

[hammy]

Hmm, can I play Devil's Advocate for a moment? After reading the text of the bill, I'm weighing this against the 1st Amendment. In what way does this violate the 1A?



This to me is somewhat vague. What's a restricted building and why is it restricted in the first place? Obviously we can't just walk into the Oval Office or the Pentagon whenever we choose, so some restrictions make sense. But does this give authority to make private places restricted by the government? The jury is still out for me on this part.




We're guaranteed the right to peaceably assemble. Does 1A gives us the right to impede others and be disruptive to legal government business? E.g. The Glitteratti, the protestors in pink (whatever their name is), throwing a pie in someone's face...



Again, impeding proper movement.




Anything wrong with outlawing violence against others?

I just like playing Devil's advocate before I pass final judgment. Does the original article blow things out of proportion? What do ya'll think?

I hear you on the violence part, but there's a GIGANTIC "or" in line 23 of the bill, clearly separating the violent action from peaceful protest. I was always under the impression that the entire point of protest was to disrupt government function. Which, this thing is nullifying.

How do others feel about this?

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

This bill prevents peaceful, organized, and vocal protest.

No doubt about it.

Bye 1st Amendment.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Has this bill been voted on by the Senate yet?

It would seem yes, from Thomas.loc

7 . Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)[H.R.347.ENR][PDF]

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Hmm, can I play Devil's Advocate for a moment? After reading the text of the bill, I'm weighing this against the 1st Amendment. In what way does this violate the 1A?



This to me is somewhat vague. What's a restricted building and why is it restricted in the first place? Obviously we can't just walk into the Oval Office or the Pentagon whenever we choose, so some restrictions make sense. But does this give authority to make private places restricted by the government? The jury is still out for me on this part.




We're guaranteed the right to peaceably assemble. Does 1A gives us the right to impede others and be disruptive to legal government business? E.g. The Glitteratti, the protestors in pink (whatever their name is), throwing a pie in someone's face...

The problem here is who gets to define what is disruptive? A large crowd is intimidating. If 10,000 people are protesting outside of Congress, even if they do not in any way, shape, or form physically block the entrances to Congress or prevent members from going in or coming out, but their presence is very large, passionate, and intimidating, surely there is someone who will specify that such intimidation is 'disruptive,' and therefore break out the tear gas, start knocking heads and arresting people.

It's all about who gets to define 'disruptive.'

Again, impeding proper movement.




Anything wrong with outlawing violence against others?

I just like playing Devil's advocate before I pass final judgment. Does the original article blow things out of proportion? What do ya'll think?

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

The problem here is who gets to define what is disruptive? A large crowd is intimidating. If 10,000 people are protesting outside of Congress, even if they do not in any way, shape, or form physically block the entrances to Congress or prevent members from going in or coming out, but their presence is very large, passionate, and intimidating, surely there is someone who will specify that such intimidation is 'disruptive,' and therefore break out the tear gas, start knocking heads and arresting people.

It's all about who gets to define 'disruptive.'

Indeed.

This bill is another "slippery slope." Depending on the interpretation of the reader.

"You either embrace the Constitution, or Shed the Constitution." - Glenn Beck (hate him, even though he's right on this)

 

[papitosabe]

i'm in another forum, and the cockroach cliq is coming out and defending it....

"What's wrong with this? If someone wants to protest, they are not restricted in any way by this bill, as long as it's not in or on a federally restricted building or grounds.
Take your occupy crowd across the street and knock yourself out"

"Disruptive protest should not be protected whether it disrupts private operations or governmental operations. A picket line should not be legally allowed to forcibly prevent people from going through a gate for example.I'm not that outraged about this. You can still protest, just don't disrupt."

"This thread, IMHO, is a prime example of what I believe is the result when some people read some blogs, news articles or forum threads and take what is said as absolute fact and then get all worked up about it and then post threads about how the big bad govt is out to take our freedoms away and that Ron Paul (or BHO) will save us all."

"Just more chicken-little "the sky is falling" silly nonsense from the OP...move along folks, nothing to see here. "

under this bill, even if you yelled out "FREEDOM!!!" , that could be considered as disrupting as long as there is secret service in the area...also what is to stop gov't from appointing anyone as contracted secret service temporarily...all you would need is one...in the area...

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

i'm in another forum, and the cockroach cliq is coming out and defending it....

"What's wrong with this? If someone wants to protest, they are not restricted in any way by this bill, as long as it's not in or on a federally restricted building or grounds.
Take your occupy crowd across the street and knock yourself out"

"Disruptive protest should not be protected whether it disrupts private operations or governmental operations. A picket line should not be legally allowed to forcibly prevent people from going through a gate for example.I'm not that outraged about this. You can still protest, just don't disrupt."

"This thread, IMHO, is a prime example of what I believe is the result when some people read some blogs, news articles or forum threads and take what is said as absolute fact and then get all worked up about it and then post threads about how the big bad govt is out to take our freedoms away and that Ron Paul (or BHO) will save us all."

"Just more chicken-little "the sky is falling" silly nonsense from the OP...move along folks, nothing to see here. "

Obedient Slaves.

 

[flightlesskiwi]

The problem here is who gets to define what is disruptive? A large crowd is intimidating. If 10,000 people are protesting outside of Congress, even if they do not in any way, shape, or form physically block the entrances to Congress or prevent members from going in or coming out, but their presence is very large, passionate, and intimidating, surely there is someone who will specify that such intimidation is 'disruptive,' and therefore break out the tear gas, start knocking heads and arresting people.

It's all about who gets to define 'disruptive.'

vaguery. lawyers are good at it. vaguery. make the law say whatever the **** you want it to say for whatever outcome you want to engineer.

 

[No Free Beer]

I'm so sick of this shit.

 

[papitosabe]

her english isn't the best so she just watches the basic MSM shit, and isn't informed about much going on...i was talking to her about NDAA, the possible drone thing, and this... she thought it was just stuff that I was reading on some blog or someone just giving opinions...she was like, nahhh, that stuff ain't real...i should her all the articles and she couldn't believe it...you should of seen her face...

 

[papitosabe]

We've got to do something guys...

I mean... we've got to DO SOMETHING. I have no clue...

I completely agree...

has anyone seen this on any MSM networks?

 

[papitosabe]

Hmm, can I play Devil's Advocate for a moment?
This to me is somewhat vague. What's a restricted building and why is it restricted in the first place? Obviously we can't just walk into the Oval Office or the Pentagon whenever we choose, so some restrictions make sense. But does this give authority to make private places restricted by the government? The jury is still out for me on this part.
Anything wrong with outlawing violence against others?

I just like playing Devil's advocate before I pass final judgment. Does the original article blow things out of proportion? What do ya'll think?

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;

`(1) the term `restricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area`
(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;

nothing wrong with outlawing violence against others, they just put that in there to make it look like its there to protect...but we already have laws for that...

 

[Shelton88]

Very scary, the evolution of our democratic republic into Fascism is quickly accelerating.

 

[Matthew5]

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;

`(1) the term `restricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area`
(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;

nothing wrong with outlawing violence against others, they just put that in there to make it look like its there to protect...but we already have laws for that...

Yeah, the violence part seems redundant.

 

[Matthew5]

vaguery. lawyers are good at it. vaguery. make the law say whatever the **** you want it to say for whatever outcome you want to engineer.

True, its potential is very concerning!

 

[MyEyesTheyBurn]

 

[pen_thief]

Tim Johnson, District 15...WTF?!!!!

 

[azxd]

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;

`(1) the term `restricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area`
(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;

nothing wrong with outlawing violence against others, they just put that in there to make it look like its there to protect...but we already have laws for that...

What one calls violence, another might call defense.