OMG, they're coming after us (H.R. 347)

[ProSense]

So says this article: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/mar2012/prot-m03.shtml

Here are all votes on the bill:

House Vote On Passage: H.R. 347: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-149

House Vote #73 (Feb 27, 2012)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2012-73

S. 1794: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011
Feb 6, 2012: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator’s position was not kept.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1794

Text:

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

--H.R.347--

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:
-`Sec. 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--
`(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.

Current law (enacted in 1971): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752

18 USC § 1752 - Restricted building or grounds

(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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752

[FLAprogressive]

1. Sounds like more Ron Paul RW nonsense to gin up those of us on the left.

Reminds me of the time that they made this huge stink over a food safety bill that was supposed to KILL ORGANIC SMALL HOME FARMS AS WE KNOW IT even though it did nothing of the sort.

[treestar]

2. Rec'd for facts

Nothing like reading something over before jumping on a bandwagon against it.

[SidDithers]

3. K&R. Facts are good...nt

Sid

[SunsetDreams]

4. Thank you for those facts

[joshcryer]

5. "An Act: To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752."

When I saw that initially I knew it would be much to do about nothing, but somehow the WSWS lying propagandists get repeatedly posted here on DU. It's embarrassing.

[ProSense]

7. It's

"An Act: To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752."

When I saw that initially I knew it would be much to do about nothing, but somehow the WSWS lying propagandists get repeatedly posted here on DU. It's embarrassing.

...intentional. The goal is to push misinformation.

[SunsetDreams]

70. agreed

[SidDithers]

71. Yup...

the genesis of most of the "concern" on this issue was the article posted at wsws.

wsws.org has explicitly endorsed Jerry White and the Socialist Equality Party for President in 2012. They are not an independent news organization. They are an advocacy site that is actively working to defeat Democrats.

Sid

[SunsetDreams]

6. kick

[unionworks]

8. HAPPY HORSESHIT

Goodbye First Amendment! Thanks a lot you Bluedog TRAITORS!

[ProSense]

9. Facts:

"Goodbye First Amendment! Thanks a lot you Bluedog TRAITORS!"

Every member of the Democratic caucus voted for the bill.

[ProSense]

11. I see

"hey 1%er...what message are you telling us to take from that? Or do you prefer to lie and claim to us you belong to the 99%?"

...you're making up your own reality as you go along.

[dionysus]

14. what are you, like 12?

[unionworks]

18. ah, over 20,000

...posts! Translate an entrenched Bluedog!

[dionysus]

51. you may continue providing me fre entertainment... carry on...

[WillyT]

19. I Just Want To Know How Much Of The Constitution We Have To Shred In Order To Win...

We used to CRUCIFY Bush over shit like this...

What's changed ???

[ProSense]

21. Wait

"We used to CRUCIFY Bush over shit like this..."

...you used to "CRUCIFY Bush" over a law enacted in 1971?

[WillyT]

24. Wow... Fake Ignorance...Usually Called "Disingenuousness/Intellectual Dishonesty"

Is usually reserved for the desperate.

And currently they are called... Republicans.

[ProSense]

26. Wow

Wow... Fake Ignorance...Usually Called "Disingenuousness/Intellectual Dishonesty"

Is usually reserved for the desperate.

And currently they are called... Republicans.

...the OP is about the 1971 law that was updated. What are you discussing?

Are you in the wrong thread?

[ProSense]

15. I really

Just tell us

That you are one of the 99% making less than 250,000 a year! I'll shut up! If you are lying then it's purgatory time for you! Spit it out now, richie!

...want to tell you something, but it would be against the rules.

I will say, your comment is idiotic. I have no desire for you to "shut up." In fact, speak up, it's entertaining.

[unionworks]

16. here is the reality

"I make up as I go along". I am living in a motel room and am damn lucky to be in it. Until George Bush took office I had a great job with a promising future. Within the first year of Bush all that dried up and blew away. If you had to walk a mile in my shoes in the ensuing years you would have sliced your wrists. Don't you dare talk down to me.

[ProSense]

17. Well,

here is the reality

"I make up as I go along". I am living in a motel room and am damn lucky to be in it. Until George Bush took office I had a great job with a promising future. Within the first year of Bush all that dried up and blew away. If you had to walk a mile in my shoes in the ensuing years you would have sliced your wrists. Don't you dare talk down to me.

...don't assume that you know other people's situations, and then use your preconceived notions as an excuse to be condescending and rude.

[unionworks]

20. Oh, PLEASE

...tell me and mine all about your desperate "situation". We could all use a good laugh...

[ProSense]

22. Are you

"Oh, PLEASE...tell me and mine all about your desperatr "situation". We could all use a good laugh..."

...trying to demonstrate your compassion?

[unionworks]

23. you are dodging

I was just asking a question that you do not want to honestly answer or you would have by now.

[ProSense]

25. Why

"I was just asking a question that you do not want to honestly answer or you would have by now. "

...do you think taunting and idiotic comments are the best ways to achieve that?

My personal life is none of your business, and I certainly don't intend to discuss it with someone like you.

[unionworks]

28. see comment #27

[ProSense]

29. Actually,

"see comment #27"

...I did, and have the same reaction.

[unionworks]

30. have fun doing double duty

...on the phone banks!

[SunsetDreams]

31. You too

[unionworks]

34. I won'tbe there

Whaddaya think of THAT?

[SunsetDreams]

35. uh..

[dionysus]

13. how biting... not

[unionworks]

27. In 2008

I spent many hours manning the phone banks for Barack Obama. I thinkthis year I will reconsider rather than risk the possibility of rubbing elbows with the likes of you.

[Amonester]

37. The thought of risking to manage how to survive a destructive R-money presidency for 4 years...

will probably help you forget about the meaningless elbow bruises.

Anyway, hoping that will be considered seriously...

[unionworks]

39. your heart

... isin the right place. That goes a long way. Btw I still have my Obama-Biden victory photo in safekeeping

[Amonester]

43. By orders of magnitude, Obama/Biden are the best candidates we have in that fight.

Plus, they already do have a positive impact on the world stage, something of importance none of the four clowns still in it will ever have (like bush/cheney).

[dionysus]

52. you've cut me to the quick. how i shall survive, i do not know...

[limpyhobbler]

32. Why is congress re-wording this section of the law right now?

If you (anybody) have an opinion, on this I would be interested. I think there must be a reason for adjusting the wording since it apparently has stayed the same for decades.

[unionworks]

33. pure coincidence

...NOT!

[ProSense]

36. You can

"Why is congress re-wording this section of the law right now?"

...find all the answers here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:H.R.347:

The bill passed the House in 2010 and was re-introduced in January 2011.

H.R.347
Latest Title: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011
Sponsor: Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-16] (introduced 1/19/2011) Cosponsors (1)
Related Bills:S.1794
Latest Major Action: 3/1/2012 Presented to President.
House Reports: 112-9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jump to: Summary, Major Actions, All Actions, Titles, Cosponsors, Committees, Related Bill Details, Amendments

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY AS OF:
2/6/2012--Passed Senate amended. (There are 4 other summaries)


(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the Senate on November 17, 2011. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 - Amends the federal criminal code to revise the prohibition against entering restricted federal buildings or grounds to impose criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly enters any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority. Defines "restricted buildings or grounds" as a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of: (1) the White House or its grounds or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds, (2) a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, or (3) a building or grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAJOR ACTIONS:

1/19/2011

Introduced in House

2/11/2011

Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-9.

2/28/2011

Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 399 - 3 (Roll no. 149).

11/17/2011

Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.

2/6/2012

Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.

2/27/2012

Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 388 - 3 (Roll no. 73).

3/1/2012

Presented to President.

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION
The United States Secret Service provides protective services to the President, the First Family, the Vice President, former Presidents, visiting heads of state, and others. This protection covers not only the White House and its grounds but also any where a protectee may be temporarily visiting. The Secret Service also provides protection at events designated as `a special event of national significance.'

Current law prohibits unlawful entries upon any restricted building or ground where the President, Vice President or other protectee is temporarily visiting. However, there is no Federal law that expressly prohibits unlawful entry to the White House and its grounds or the Vice President's residence and its grounds.

The Secret Service must therefore rely upon a provision in the District of Columbia Code, which addresses only minor misdemeanor infractions, when someone attempts to or successfully trespasses upon the grounds of the White House or Vice President's residence or, worse, breaches the White House or Vice President's residence itself.

H.R. 347 remedies this problem by specifically including the White House, the Vice President's residence, and their respective grounds in the definition of restricted buildings and grounds for purposes of Section 1752.

The bill also clarifies that the penalties in Section 1752 of title 18 apply to those who knowingly enter or remain in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so. Current law does not include this important element. The bill makes other technical improvements to the existing law. In the 111th Congress, the House approved similar legislation (H.R. 2780) by voice vote on July 27, 2010.

[limpyhobbler]

38. nevermind

I think I missed your post update or something.

I see you pasted in an additional explanation on edit.
got it now. I'm going to read up more on it if I have time.

Thanks.

[ProSense]

40. Did

"But why is it being changed now after all these decades?"

...you miss this:

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION
The United States Secret Service provides protective services to the President, the First Family, the Vice President, former Presidents, visiting heads of state, and others. This protection covers not only the White House and its grounds but also any where a protectee may be temporarily visiting. The Secret Service also provides protection at events designated as `a special event of national significance.'

Current law prohibits unlawful entries upon any restricted building or ground where the President, Vice President or other protectee is temporarily visiting. However, there is no Federal law that expressly prohibits unlawful entry to the White House and its grounds or the Vice President's residence and its grounds.

The Secret Service must therefore rely upon a provision in the District of Columbia Code, which addresses only minor misdemeanor infractions, when someone attempts to or successfully trespasses upon the grounds of the White House or Vice President's residence or, worse, breaches the White House or Vice President's residence itself.

H.R. 347 remedies this problem by specifically including the White House, the Vice President's residence, and their respective grounds in the definition of restricted buildings and grounds for purposes of Section 1752.

The bill also clarifies that the penalties in Section 1752 of title 18 apply to those who knowingly enter or remain in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so. Current law does not include this important element. The bill makes other technical improvements to the existing law. In the 111th Congress, the House approved similar legislation (H.R. 2780) by voice vote on July 27, 2010.

There is nothing sinister there. The update first passed the House in 2010. It was re-introduced in 2011.

[SunsetDreams]

42. ProSense that deserves it's own excerpt in the OP IMO

[Uncle Joe]

44. I don't imagine a more evil version of Cheney or Bush would come after strikers or protesters

using this language as a premise, do you?

"Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 - Amends the federal criminal code to revise the prohibition against entering restricted federal buildings or grounds to impose criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly enters any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority. Defines "restricted buildings or grounds" as a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of: (1) the White House or its grounds or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds, (2) a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, or (3) a building or grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance."

[randome]

45. 'Evil' will always have a way to parse the language to do what they want.

That much has not changed.

[Uncle Joe]

46. I agree, I also believe that language will be easy to parse.

Particulary when economic times get really tough sparking more protests and/or strikes.

[onenote]

50. the point is that this isn't new language

Its part of the law now and whether or not HR 347 was enacted (in order to provide protection to the WH and the VP's residence that was not provided under the current law) it would still be part of the law.

People are suggesting that this is a big change in the law. Its not.

[joshcryer]

41. They do this all the time for their ad campaigns. It's basic diddling.

Now they can throw this on an ad saying that they did something when in reality they basically did nothing.

It serves propaganda outlets like WSWS well, particularly when people eat their lies hook line and sinker.

[SidDithers]

66. You mean, why did they adjust it in January 2011?...nt

Sid

[FSogol]

47. K&R. n/t

[GeorgeGist]

48. I think you are ...

'willfully and knowingly' trying to distract the reader from observing that the restrictions no longer require that the offender be acting 'willfully'.

[TBF]

49. Very good response. nt

[KoKo]

53. +1

[ProSense]

54. I think

I think you are ...'willfully and knowingly' trying to distract the reader from observing that the restrictions no longer require that the offender be acting 'willfully'.

...you're desperately trying to salvage a bogus claim. The frame being advance connecting the bill to OWS is completely disingenuous and idiotic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=389591

I didn't write the bill, introduce it in 2010 and force every Democrat to vote for it. Putting forward the facts is not "'willfully and knowingly' trying to distract."

Sorry to interrupt the faux outrage.

[SunsetDreams]

55. Perhaps that is because Willful and Intent

have been held to be synonymous in jurisdictions.

[onenote]

68. +1

[ieoeja]

67. I think you are ...

"Knowlingly" trying to distract the reader from observing that the restrictions now require that the offender impede, disrupt or act violently. A1 and A2 in the older version applied to mere presence. No disruption was required.

So the new version is actually less restrictive than the original.


To sum the two versions:

Old Version
- Banned from restricted areas even if not disruptive.
- Applies to any location where certain principals may be present.

New Version
- Banned only if disruptive.
- Applies to White House and VP residence full time, not just when the principals are present.

[rug]

56. These are now federal crimes:

&feature=related

&feature=related

&feature=related

&feature=related

[randome]

57. Please stop trying to promote scare tactics.

It isn't working.

[rug]

58. Facts can be scary

unless they're ignored.

[randome]

59. And you seem to be ignoring them.

As well as the posts in the rest of this thread.

[rug]

60. What part of "other person protected by the Secret Service" am I ignoring?

[SunsetDreams]

61. That part was also included in the 1971 original legislation

since all of those videos you posted happened after 1971, guess they are not the crime you purport them to be.

[rug]

62. Well, then, there's no need for this legislation, is there?

[randome]

63. Read the rest of the thread.

[SunsetDreams]

65. Maybe you missed post 40....

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION
The United States Secret Service provides protective services to the President, the First Family, the Vice President, former Presidents, visiting heads of state, and others. This protection covers not only the White House and its grounds but also any where a protectee may be temporarily visiting. The Secret Service also provides protection at events designated as `a special event of national significance.'

Current law prohibits unlawful entries upon any restricted building or ground where the President, Vice President or other protectee is temporarily visiting. However, there is no Federal law that expressly prohibits unlawful entry to the White House and its grounds or the Vice President's residence and its grounds.

The Secret Service must therefore rely upon a provision in the District of Columbia Code, which addresses only minor misdemeanor infractions, when someone attempts to or successfully trespasses upon the grounds of the White House or Vice President's residence or, worse, breaches the White House or Vice President's residence itself.

H.R. 347 remedies this problem by specifically including the White House, the Vice President's residence, and their respective grounds in the definition of restricted buildings and grounds for purposes of Section 1752.

The bill also clarifies that the penalties in Section 1752 of title 18 apply to those who knowingly enter or remain in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so. Current law does not include this important element. The bill makes other technical improvements to the existing law. In the 111th Congress, the House approved similar legislation (H.R. 2780) by voice vote on July 27, 2010.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002385100#post40

among other posts. Do you find it unnecessary to include the Whitehouse, the Vice Presidents residence, and their respective grounds in the definition?

[ProSense]

64. The

"What part of "other person protected by the Secret Service" am I ignoring?"

...part that it has always been the law. From the OP:

Current law (enacted in 1971): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752

18 USC § 1752 - Restricted building or grounds

(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 s or will be temporarily visiting;

<...>

What did you think Secret Service protection meant?

[SunsetDreams]

69. kick

[shark_attackk]

72. Petition to uphold our right to petition our grievences

HR 347 acts in direct violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Protect the Constitution. Protect our rights. Please sign this petition asking President Obama to veto the bill.

http://wh.gov/9r0