What do you think of this article about HR 347 (Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds etc...) ?

[limpyhobbler]

What do you think of this article about HR 347?

There were some changes to the law relating to the words "knowingly" and "willfully". This author thinks the changes are not necessarily trivial. I've see a few people on DU say that this change was just cleaning up language, and it is not a significant difference in meaning. This lawyer seems to disagree. Is this lawyer a credible source? I never heard of him before but I read this article and it seems to make sense. On the other hand, I'm not a lawyer. I usually rely on cues from various left-wing media sources and politicians to decide what I think about things like this. It's not working for me this time since most of them are not discussing it.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/03/on-the-federal-restricted-buildings-and-grounds-improvement-act-of-2011/

So how important is the elimination of the “willfully” requirement? The answer will depend on how the revised statute is enforced, but, on first glance, the change is not obviously trivial. “Willfully” generally requires more than “knowingly.” As the Supreme Court once put it, in order convict under the “willfully” standard, a jury “must find that the defendant acted with an evil-meaning mind, that is to say, that he acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful.” Contrast this with the “knowingly” standard, which only “requires proof of knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense,” unless a statute’s text dictates otherwise – and H.R. 347’s text certainly doesn’t dictate otherwise. Also remember that many people – foreign leaders, vice presidential and presidential candidates, and so on – sometimes can qualify for Secret Service protection. In an election year, that can mean a lot of areas restricted on account of official visits, and thus a lot more opportunities for citizens to wander, deliberately or not, into temporarily restricted places.

[rsmith6621]

1. Not to mention

how large of an area can the SS designate as the grounds at a political function,could be the entire city in reality ..... Our Occupy Group went to 2 US Sen and 2 US Reps office today and made a request for clarification.

[limpyhobbler]

4. That's really cool.

Is your group asking the members of Congress to give their personal interpretation of what the law does?

Or are you petitioning them to pass another bill to clarify the language?

[jeff47]

6. Not unless you want to evacuate the city.

You can't exclude only the people with signs you don't like. You have to exclude everyone.

[jeff47]

2. He fails with this sentence:

and thus a lot more opportunities for citizens to wander, deliberately or not, into temporarily restricted places.

Law requires barriers, fences, signs or other clear demarcation. Arguing it's possible to "wander" into a security cordon is ludicrous.

[Luminous Animal]

3. Hi. Could you please quote the part of H.R. 137 law that requires a clear demarcation?

[jeff47]

5. Hrm...this giant fence around the White House. I'll just hop on over and start picking flowers

`(1) the term `restricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area--

Oh, and if you'd prefer the original 1971 language:

(1) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area

Wait a minute....it almost looks like the same language that's been on the books for 40 years. Golly, I'm sure it will suddenly mean no protests ever again when the new law is signed!!

[Luminous Animal]

13. or otherwise restricted area. So no, it does not need to a clearly demarcated area.

And yes, dear. I know that it is similar to a law that has been on the books for 40 years. I'm not sure what the fuck your problem is. I've never once made the claim that there will suddenly be no protests ever again when the new law is signed.

[jeff47]

16. According to the Justice Department, it does.

In addition to appropriate signs providing notice of a temporary residence or of a restricted area, the Secret Service will endeavor to post personnel in appropriate locations to give verbal notification to persons seeking to enter without authority or otherwise act in violation of the statute, to meet the special problems of notice in restricted areas

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01547.htm

[limpyhobbler]

8. If I understand you correctly,

you believe it is impossible for a person to accidentally find themselves in a restricted area.

Is that correct?

[jeff47]

9. In an area restricted by this law, yes.

There are other laws creating "restricted" areas that do not require fences, etc. So it's possible to accidentally wander into an area restricted by other laws.

[limpyhobbler]

10. What is an "otherwise restricted area"?

the term `restricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area--

What is meant by "otherwise restricted area"? How is it different from a "posted" or "cordoned off" area?

[jeff47]

12. It's a generic catch-all so they don't have to list all the ways to do it.

Here's what the Justice Department says about it:

In addition to appropriate signs providing notice of a temporary residence or of a restricted area, the Secret Service will endeavor to post personnel in appropriate locations to give verbal notification to persons seeking to enter without authority or otherwise act in violation of the statute, to meet the special problems of notice in restricted areas

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01547.htm

It should also be noted that "otherwise restricted area" has been in the law since 1971, and any attempts to claim nefarious intent would have to explain why it has never been used for such intent in the last 40 years.

[limpyhobbler]

14. Do you know whether this law only applies to areas restricted by the Secret Service?

Or can it apply to areas restricted by local police departments, if so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance?

[jeff47]

15. It requires the Secret Service

It only applies to locations the Secret Service protects (White House, VP house), or places their protectees are visiting, or "a special event of national significance" which has an explicit definition in law that puts Secret Service in charge of security.

State and local law enforcement can't use it. Heck, the FBI can't use it.

[Warpy]

7. it's unconstitutional, of course

but the appallingly bad Roberts court will likely uphold it.

[jeff47]

11. You might be interested in this analysis

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01547.htm