Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

In the United States, where the felony/misdemeanor distinction is still widely applied, the federal government defines a felony as a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. If punishable by exactly one year or less, it is classified as a misdemeanor.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
The implications are significant on all levels. The Occupy London protest otside St. Pauls Cathedral was evicted last week only after a long legal process to get the eviction order. You, however, are now breaking the law pretty much as soon as you turn up to protest.
Capitalism knows how much of a crisis it's in and is preparing itself for the upheavals among the majority sections of society.
Your going to need to build more prisons.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
No, we need to build just a few guillotines.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Does the House still have that rule, passed by the R's & Tea Partiers, about attaching a memo to a bill explaining its Constitutional justification?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Does the House still have that rule, passed by the R's & Tea Partiers, about attaching a memo to a bill explaining its Constitutional justification?

---

Quote:

---

(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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Does the House still have that rule, passed by the R's & Tea Partiers, about attaching a memo to a bill explaining its Constitutional justification?

---

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 19, 2011)]
[House]
[Page H356]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [ www.gpo.gov]

By Mr. ROONEY:
H.R. 347.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following:
Article I, Section 8: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any Department or Officer thereof.




"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

`(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds;

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Anyone see any differences?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

The proposed bill simplified the language.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I think I spotted two.

"of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting;"

---

Quote:

---

"(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."

---

Quote:

---

"(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;"

This feature (above) seems to greatly expand the affected venues.

---

Quote:

---

So, essentially it seems (to my uninformed self) that the new law expands the rule to any area where something of national significance is occurring. (Not just where the secret service is protecting someone.)

---

Quote:

---

Also, the new law is no longer subject to other laws. It implicitly overrides them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:


I'm still thinking that the specific addition of the White House and VP's residence to the list of "restricted buildings or grounds", and some re-ordering of paragraphs, is about it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Some are more equal than others ...?

No sir, I don't like it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Oh please. Stop your whining.


Some are simply MORE equal than others.


It's a scientific fact.

---

Quote:

---

ongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
"So it's hard to know the exact implications of this one-word change, especially when some very nasty, excessive crack-downs happen already in cases like G-20 summit protests. But law is precedent and interpretation. So in a world where the National Defense Authorization Act maybe allows for the indefiniate detainment of citizens, but maybe not, but the President says he won't use the power so trust him, governments don't need one more inch – not one more word of excuse — to crack down on protest and speech."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

"of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting;"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
"So it's hard to know the exact implications of this one-word change, especially when some very nasty, excessive crack-downs happen already in cases like G-20 summit protests. But law is precedent and interpretation. So in a world where the National Defense Authorization Act maybe allows for the indefiniate detainment of citizens, but maybe not, but the President says he won't use the power so trust him, governments don't need one more inch – not one more word of excuse — to crack down on protest and speech."

---

But if you think this is true, then worrying about changes to the law is moot, since you don't trust the government to obey the current law anyway. Of course, some folks read "death panels" into health care legislation as well. I suppose it depends somewhat on who/what your particular boogeymen are.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
You will ( or should but probably won't) notice that the site that publicized this is a Socialist Party website.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
....other specifically ennumerated rights under the First Amendment.

Quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 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.

---

---

Quote:

---

Ha. Tried sacrificing a virgin lately?

---

Quote:

---

So they can't shorten the speech they permit, but have no check on prohibiting it entirely.

---

Quote:

---

Or, consider that the 5 million "person" military of the People's Republic of China is "People", so the Holy President could invite them over to "peaceably" Occupy American cities and military bases in preparation for the Communist/Church take-over.

---

Quote:

---

If the God-President doesn't decide that they're not assembling "peaceably" enough, and uses his Commie chums to ship them off to the Church/State-run re-education camps. And nowhere does it say that the new theocratic "Government" has to respond, or even listen.

---

Quote:

---

(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;

---

Quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 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.

---

Quote:

---

The constitution gives people the right to peacefully assemble and petition the government. It does not give the right to interfere with others or the operation of government. There is a reason such actions are called civil disobedience.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
The laws about squatting on public property that are currently being used to evict protestors came after the constitution. Those laws might well have been questionable in the first place due to the impact they might have on freedom to assembly. ("Government shall make no law")

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
'course that's in the EXISTING law, which sounds pretty unconstitutional on its face. And it's happened at the last couple of party conventions. Maybe someone should sue, believing that the strict originalists on the current Supreme Court will overturn the whole mess.

---

Quote:

---

Setting up a tent city is far beyond that spirit.

---

Quote:

---

The rules are not arbitrary, they are set forth for reasons.

---

Quote:

---

In this case it is to ("ensure" -ed) that the Secrete Service can do it's job and protect the people it is assigned to protect, and to ensure that groups of people can't hinder government from doing it's job.

---

Quote:

---

The first amendment, nor the spirit of it, is ("not" -ed) justification to break the law.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Not really. Unless you insist that everyone has a time-limit on how long they can express their ideals, but I don't think that has any precedence.

---

Quote:

---

Of course it's JUSTIFICATION, some people will break laws simply because they're THERE. Whether it's morally and ethically acceptable and whether or not it causes harm or sufficient damage for the government to intervene is the question you're asking.

Me, I'm simply going to say you're lawful and I'm chaotic, and neither of us will reach agreement here. So let's do us both a favor and avoid a big drawn out argument.

---

Quote:

---

The Supreme Court is the end say so if a law is constitutional or not. On that matter their is not higher authority. It is true they can change their interpretations but until they do, or the constitution is changed they are correct.

---

Quote:

---

If you not wish to discuss any further that is fine.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Fair enough, though we can also hold an opinion differing from theirs. Otherwise there would not be cases to overturn previous decisions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I consider some of that inaccurate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Ha. Tried sacrificing a virgin lately?

---