Alright I need someone to Justify HR 347 to me???
Options
Soloman_The_Wise
Members Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭✭✭
I see a lot of kats talking about how much good Obama has done but they tend to not even acknowledge moves like this so please justify this move and explain how it is part of teh better future Obama is making for us???
Comments
-
The explanation is simple. The passing of this bill is just confirmation that the Constitution is under attack (has been for some time now). Also, it seems as if they are setting up a system that will son criminalize any type of public criticism of the government and its policies.
So in short, it was not done to make the future better for us. It was passed to expedite the process of the USA becoming some sort of communist nation. -
Soloman, what's HR 347?? Is that the NDAA thing that Obama signed, making it okay to lock people up without charges indefinitely??
-
yes it give the secret service the right to charge anyone with a felony if they protest in public anyone under secret service protection thus making all politicians on a national level and many other individuals free of public criticism for fear of felony incarceration much like the poster before you posted...kingblaze84 wrote: »Soloman, what's HR 347?? Is that the NDAA thing that Obama signed, making it okay to lock people up without charges indefinitely??
-
Soloman the Wise wrote: »
yes it give the secret service the right to charge anyone with a felony if they protest in public anyone under secret service protection thus making all politicians on a national level and many other individuals free of public criticism for fear of felony incarceration much like the poster before you posted...kingblaze84 wrote: »Soloman, what's HR 347?? Is that the NDAA thing that Obama signed, making it okay to lock people up without charges indefinitely??
Hope and change.....you gotta love it. Obama is making George W Bush so proud right now......this is exactly why my conscience won't let me vote for this fraud again in November. Fool me once, cool, fool me twice, won't happen again. I highly doubt you're gonna see Obama fans defend this ? , but than again, Obama fans are no better than Bush fans. I look at them equally the same. -
HR347 makes it illegal to protest "inside a restricted building or restricted area". You can still protest in front of the white house or in front of the building where the the President is giving a speech. You can not however break into the speech and protest from the lobby. Basically any area where the Secret Service need to maintain security.
The Secret Service protect the President and Vice President, the families of both, former Presidents, and visiting Head of States. SO this 'restriction' is pretty mild. -
ya'll really neeed to actually rtead the damn thing
-
HR347 makes it illegal to protest "inside a restricted building or restricted area". You can still protest in front of the white house or in front of the building where the the President is giving a speech. You can not however break into the speech and protest from the lobby. Basically any area where the Secret Service need to maintain security.
The Secret Service protect the President and Vice President, the families of both, former Presidents, and visiting Head of States. SO this 'restriction' is pretty mild.
I did read it and it gives the secret service the ability to declare any area they see fit as restricted. There is no process other then there summary judgement for what areas should be considered restricted nor do they even have to announce that said area is restricted before arresting people and charging them. It gives them a unilateral ability to arrest anyone who protests against someone under their protection and the confines are determined soley by the secret service. By wording they could declare a whole city a restricted area if they wanted to or more. It removes burden of due processs and not only is the person charged with a felony that will ? up their life for peacefull protest but they can be locked up for over a year and upto 10 years for excercising their right to free speech...Black Jerry Maguire wrote: »ya'll really neeed to actually rtead the damn thing
-
H. R. 347
One Hundred Twelfth Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
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 ? 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. -
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf‘‘§ 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
You can protest without disrupting orderly conduct. What's the big deal?
Also, who the secret service protects:(a) Under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security,
the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect the
following persons:
(1) The President, the Vice President (or other officer next in
the order of succession to the Office of President), the
President-elect, and the Vice President-elect.
(2) The immediate families of those individuals listed in
paragraph (1).
(3) Former Presidents and their spouses for their lifetimes,
except that protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event
of remarriage unless the former President did not serve as
President prior to January 1, 1997, in which case, former
Presidents and their spouses for a period of not more than ten
years from the date a former President leaves office, except that
-
(A) protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event of
remarriage or the divorce from, or death of a former President;
and
(B) should the death of a President occur while in office or
within one year after leaving office, the spouse shall receive
protection for one year from the time of such death:
Provided, That the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the
authority to direct the Secret Service to provide temporary
protection for any of these individuals at any time if the
Secretary of Homeland Security or designee determines that
information or conditions warrant such protection.
(4) Children of a former President who are under 16 years of
age for a period not to exceed ten years or upon the child
becoming 16 years of age, whichever comes first.
(5) Visiting heads of foreign states or foreign governments.
(6) Other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States
and official representatives of the United States performing
special missions abroad when the President directs that such
protection be provided.
(7) Major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates and,
within 120 days of the general Presidential election, the spouses
of such candidates. As used in this paragraph, the term "major
Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates" means those
individuals identified as such by the Secretary of Homeland
Security after consultation with an advisory committee consisting
of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the minority
leader of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority
leaders of the Senate, and one additional member selected by the
other members of the committee.
The protection authorized in paragraphs (2) through (7) may be
declined. -
I posted the bill in its entirety above if you cannot see how peacefull protest is affected and how broad reaching and arbitrary the wording is in giving the secret service teh ability to essentially establish any area as restricted for any number of reasons I do not know what to tell you other then go back to school...
-
Soloman the Wise wrote: »I posted the bill in its entirety above if you cannot see how peacefull protest is affected and how broad reaching and arbitrary the wording is in giving the secret service teh ability to essentially establish any area as restricted for any number of reasons I do not know what to tell you other then go back to school...
Yeah, I must've still been in the reply box while you posted. Secret Service is not protecting your local politicians, though. You act like we don't have a chance. By the way, I don't see where the service can establish an area as restricted if they want to. It has to be where the person/people of importance is/are or a "national event". It's not as clear in that respect. -
the wording used for this gives them(the secret service) the right to deem what is restricted it does not say anything about a politician doing so infact the 1st point is giving the broad discretion to the secret service and point b does so further in being able to designate any place a protected individual is temporarily visiting. As to the other points you made I was always talking national level refer to the bolded...TwentyFive.Lighters wrote: »Soloman the Wise wrote: »I posted the bill in its entirety above if you cannot see how peacefull protest is affected and how broad reaching and arbitrary the wording is in giving the secret service teh ability to essentially establish any area as restricted for any number of reasons I do not know what to tell you other then go back to school...
Yeah, I must've still been in the reply box while you posted. Secret Service is not protecting your local politicians, though. You act like we don't have a chance. By the way, I don't see where the service can establish an area as restricted if they want to. It has to be where the person/people of importance is/are or a "national event". It's not as clear in that respect.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; andSoloman the Wise wrote: »
yes it give the secret service the right to charge anyone with a felony if they protest in public anyone under secret service protection thus making all politicians on a national level and many other individuals free of public criticism for fear of felony incarceration much like the poster before you posted...kingblaze84 wrote: »Soloman, what's HR 347?? Is that the NDAA thing that Obama signed, making it okay to lock people up without charges indefinitely??
-
Well TW (topic writer) has a point. The law does prevent public protest INSIDE any "federally restricted" building or ON ITS GROUNDS.
However this probably has a lot to do with Occupiers & Tea Partiers screaming at Government officials in their offices and at rallies. I don't agree with it in the least but I understand it. Some people go into those places to intentionally disrupt proceedings (and rightfully so) but its not just the politician they are disrupting its the public audience as well.
The concept that the SecSer can state any area is "restricted" isn't something I saw on the law, but they already can call an area "federally restricted" if they are being deployed to a site to protect a politician who is giving a speech or holding a rally.
Just harass your local politician but I already know there are probably several states with copycat legislation on the books. -
It seems to me that this will be financially difficult for people. Health insurance isn't cheap.
-
this looks more like a provision to stop the "you lie!" ? and the disrespectful idiot fox news type reporters screaming over the president while he's making a speech/or statement.
totally unnecessary law to curb totally unnecessary nuisances -
the ballot or the bullet
-
Y'all stay overreacting to this bill! Its not taking away free speech
Its stopping people from yelling at the president while he gives speeches and forming protests that impede movement in surrounding areas. No protest should be done without tact. There should be no intimidation of employees. The repeated use of the word knowingly removes the possibility of them creating random spots without informing folks. Chill the ? out.
