Online Now 3763

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 1882
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3780
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

It is now illegal to protest in the United States of America

  • Due to Obama signing House Resolution 347, any action that "impedes" or "disrupts" "government business" or an "official function" is punishable by a 10-year jail sentence.

    Sure, this law will stop Occupy Wall Street (how the law is being spun), but now it's lawful for the government to keep everyone from protesting or speaking out at all at any event that the Secret Service designates as having "national significance".

    __________
    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.'.

    This post has been edited 7 times, most recently by ScoutExile on 3/15/2012 at 1:32 AM

    Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:7:./temp/~c112nJ0442::

    thomas.loc.gov

    Powered by Google Docs

    https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:-sQTjsfZus0J:www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf HR 347&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgQV7tb7zRIrqHgkLUDFD8ufm7iV247tNzwlQG8dEB9U6xjsYWQ2RE6706eEPwKzycCHhoiDfBXKWWQX6Bxqp4NQWdmVqwGjx0EGd28KT8rg-MP_6Bge2GxMRFpioULX_62Qf11&sig=AHIEtbToXSzcsiAqsGgQ-GdxqocWRX1uvA

    docs.google.com
    signature image

    ScoutExile

  • Yeah that law is BS. I don't see why he signed it.

    TalHawkins112

  • TalHawkins112 said...

    Yeah that law is BS. I don't see why he signed it.

    I think because the Democrats failed at exploiting the occupy movement for their own gain, so it's politically expedient to throw them under the bus right now. He's also able to take away freedoms that could lead to large-scale protests and rioting if our economy heads further south like Greece's.

    Personally, I think it might be time to impeach.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by ScoutExile on 3/15/2012 at 12:18 AM

    signature image

    ScoutExile

  • Don't think it will hold up in court when a lawyer brings up someones Freedom of Speech. Just a way for them to shutdown protests.

    It would be funny if people protest this during a public government occasion.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Hoffelcopter

  • Your link timed out, but from what I know, it can't stop protesting. It was already legal to break up a spontaneous protest. You are required to have a permit so that police and others can ensure that protests do not hinder others.

    BetterOff

  • ScoutExile said...

    I think because the Democrats failed at exploiting the occupy movement for their own gain, so it's politically expedient to throw them under the bus right now. He's also able to take away freedoms that could lead to large-scale protests and rioting if our economy heads further south like Greece's.

    Personally, I think it might be time to impeach.

    Did he write the bill?

    signature image signature image signature image

    kitemac

  • Hoffelcopter said...

    Don't think it will hold up in court when a lawyer brings up someones Freedom of Speech. Just a way for them to shutdown protests.

    It would be funny if people protest this during a public government occasion.

    Actually, there's Supreme Court precedents from wartime that back this law. It could stand as written.

    signature image

    ScoutExile

  • ScoutExile said...

    Due to Obama signing House Resolution 347, any action that "impedes" or "disrupts" "government business" or an "official function" is punishable by a 10-year jail sentence.

    Sure, this law will stop Occupy Wall Street (how the law is being spun), but now it's lawful for the government to keep everyone from protesting or speaking out at all.

    The text of this bill is below.

    First off. He signed the bill,but a republican congressman introduced the bill and it was passed in both houses, which means it's a safe assumption there was bi-partisan support. So we should impeach them all? Now I read the resolution and it doesn't end all protests just protests like some of the pccupy movements where they come and try to disrupt the running of the government. It's really not as partisan as you make it out to be. Honestly,I think it's much and should get the legal review,but in terms of intentions,its make sense. On the Greek comparison, lulz.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • ScoutExile said...

    I think because the Democrats failed at exploiting the occupy movement for their own gain, so it's politically expedient to throw them under the bus right now. He's also able to take away freedoms that could lead to large-scale protests and rioting if our economy heads further south like Greece's.

    Personally, I think it might be time to impeach.

    Economy is actually on the right track. The market is rising even faster than gas prices.

    c_woodson

  • DID ANYONE READ IT?

    i can't find anywhere where it is illegal to protest...

    signature image
    signature image
    signature image

    www.yohoodent.com ... errybawdee awn ignorle

    GoingLightBarny

  • c_woodson said...

    Economy is actually on the right track. The market is rising even faster than gas prices.

    .

    attachment
    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • GoingLightBarny said...

    DID ANYONE READ IT?

    i can't find anywhere where it is illegal to protest...

    Maybe Scout can point it out...

    Unknown Titlke

    >stream hޔV�r�H��u��Q�^�sZ� fcŽ9���YjAς�P��p�_`.� ��[���f�/$��ʬ��?�g�sw>|"@ �;����R� !�������T��t�n�������|h$��E����.��� ��8������tqkP�\��At\�7���]

    www.gpo.gov
    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • GoingLightBarny said...

    DID ANYONE READ IT?

    i can't find anywhere where it is illegal to protest...

    I didn't either. It says you can't impede others with your actions, but nothing about protesting.

    Don't see the problem.

    BetterOff

  • BetterOff said...

    I didn't either. It says you can't impede others with your actions, but nothing about protesting.

    Don't see the problem.

    F it let's impeach the president over something both houses passed and a Republican introduced.

    signature image signature image signature image

    kitemac

  • ScoutExile said...

    I think because the Democrats failed at exploiting the occupy movement for their own gain, so it's politically expedient to throw them under the bus right now. He's also able to take away freedoms that could lead to large-scale protests and rioting if our economy heads further south like Greece's.

    Personally, I think it might be time to impeach.

    You do understand that you can't impeach for not agreeing with the President's policies, right?

    Sarcasm?? Hopefully.

    BetterOff

  • kitemac said...

    F it let's impeach the president over something both houses passed and a Republican introduced.

    Come on now. We had a guy lead an impeachment effort for an affair while having an affair. I dont think having an impeachment trial over what an impeacher had helped pass is much of a stretch.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    Come on now. We had a guy lead an impeachment effort for an affair while having an affair. I dont think having an impeachment trial over what an impeacher had helped pass is much of a stretch.

    Solid stuff here!

    BetterOff

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    Come on now. We had a guy lead an impeachment effort for an affair while having an affair. I dont think having an impeachment trial over what an impeacher had helped pass is much of a stretch.

    Can we impeach all of Congress while we are at it?

    signature image signature image signature image

    kitemac

  • GoingLightBarny said...

    DID ANYONE READ IT?

    i can't find anywhere where it is illegal to protest...

    "Conduct which obstructs or impedes ingress or egress" means it's illegal to make it harder to walk around, meaning people can't gather in crowds.

    signature image

    ScoutExile

  • kitemac said...

    Can we impeach all of Congress while we are at it?

    If someone could lobby this with enough money,they would probably impeach themselves. Oh the hilarity! panic

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • ScoutExile said...

    "Conduct which obstructs or impedes ingress or egress" means it's illegal to make it harder to walk around, meaning people can't gather in crowds.

    yes, but where?

    it is only in limited places...

    this is the same as Bush pushing protesters out 10,000 yards and all that shit...

    the big penalties are if you are doing it with a weapon and you injure someone...

    signature image
    signature image
    signature image

    www.yohoodent.com ... errybawdee awn ignorle

    GoingLightBarny

  • ScoutExile said...

    "Conduct which obstructs or impedes ingress or egress" means it's illegal to make it harder to walk around, meaning people can't gather in crowds.

    Really?

    That's what you got out of that?

    You could just as easily assume that you can't break out a game of hacky sack as well with that quote.

    Stretch is a pretty big stretch.

    BetterOff

  • BetterOff said...

    You do understand that you can't impeach for not agreeing with the President's policies, right?

    Sarcasm?? Hopefully.

    You can impeach for whatever the hell you want. It's not a stretch to say that this is a crime against the American people and the republic.

    signature image

    ScoutExile

  • kitemac said...

    Can we impeach all of Congress while we are at it?

    I would tune into CSPAN for that.

    BetterOff

  • ScoutExile said...

    "Conduct which obstructs or impedes ingress or egress" means it's illegal to make it harder to walk around, meaning people can't gather in crowds.

    Except they are talking about on and in government buildings and I guess sites where the president will be. I mean, I don't want some jackasses in the freaking Capitol building like they were in Madison awhile back. It's really not the stretch you are attempting.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba