Trampling the Constitution

[The Sarge]

Slowly eating away at it folks. One small step at a time.
2nd Amendment lost here also. Let me explain.
Last week both parties passed a bill very quietly. Obama signed it very quietly.
HR347 makes it a FELONY to protest anywhere around a person(s) protected by the Secret Service. One of our more basic freedoms (Freedom of Speech) has now been regulated to the whim of the Secret Service.
Think any of the Constitution is safe in this environment now?
http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/how-big-deal-hr-347-criminalizing-protest-bill
Also, while H.R. 347, on its own, is only of incremental importance, it could be misused as part of a larger move by the Secret Service and others to suppress lawful protest by relegating it to particular locations at a public event. These "free speech zones" are frequently used to target certain viewpoints or to keep protesters away from the cameras. Although H.R. 347 doesn't directly address free speech zones, it is part of the set of laws that make this conduct possible, and should be seen in this context.

http://inthesetimes.com/ittlist/entry/12874/obama_signs_the_anti-occupy_law/
The new bill modifies a 1971 law that restricted entering or blocking public areas cordoned off by the Secret Service while a protected individual is passing through, or during major public events like the Super Bowl or party nominating conventions. Violators can face up to a year in jail; if they’re carrying a dangerous weapon, it’s ten.

Allow a hypothetical scenario. I am legally carrying and pass buy a shopping mall with a Congressman speaking to a crowd. At the whim of the Secret Service I can be gang tackled and thrown in the slammer for ten years. The burden for them to prove "my state of mind" is now been reduced to nothing more than their discretion.

 

[WardenWolf]

That will likely get declared unconstitutional in short order.

 

[The Sarge]

How so? If your counting on the SCOTUS then we are all in trouble.

 

[JohnBT]

Don't worry, the ACLU has your back.

www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/how-big-deal-hr-347-criminalizing-protest-bill

" The bill slightly rewrites a short trespass law, originally passed in 1971 and amended a couple of times since"

"Under the original language of the law, you had to act "willfully and knowingly" when committing the crime. In short, you had to know your conduct was illegal. Under H.R. 347, you will simply need to act "knowingly," which here would mean that you know you're in a restricted area, but not necessarily that you're committing a crime."

 

[CoRoMo]

Is my post the only one that contains the word 'gun'?

Because this is a gun forum.

I am legally carrying and pass buy a shopping mall with a Congressman speaking to a crowd. At the whim of the Secret Service I can be gang tackled and thrown in the slammer for ten years.

I thought the SS only guard individuals in the Executive Branch of government, and that they shut down the venue and implement the tightest security measures when they do. Therefore, that Congressman would have to be running for president and you wouldn't have made it past their entry checkpoint.

 

[Rob G]

I am legally carrying and pass buy a shopping mall with a Congressman speaking to a crowd. At the whim of the Secret Service I can be gang tackled and thrown in the slammer for ten years.

No, it says you have to enter or block a public area cordoned off by the SS. Passing nearby isn't the same thing.

Also as CoRoMo pointed out not a lot of people in the government actually get SS protection.

 

[The Sarge]

Allow a hypothetical scenario. I am legally carrying and pass buy a shopping mall with a Congressman speaking to a crowd. At the whim of the Secret Service I can be gang tackled and thrown in the slammer for ten years. The burden for them to prove "my state of mind" is now been reduced to nothing more than their discretion.

Is my post the only one that contains the word 'gun'?

Because this is a gun forum.

Ugh...I went there in my first post friend.

 

[The Sarge]

No, it says you have to enter or block a public area cordoned off by the SS. Passing nearby isn't the same thing.

Yes the old law did. Read the entire bill. "They" can make the decision what is off limits and what is not. At their discretion. On the fly.
“[H.R. 347] expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it’s illegal.”

 

[CoRoMo]

The subject of the thread is a bill that affects demonstrating where the SS are positioned. This is not on topic for this forum.

Your hypothetical was a tangent off the main subject.

Therefore this thread is not entirely on topic here. The mods are apparently allowing it, so it's no big deal.

 

[Rob G]

I did read it

‘‘§ 1752. Restricted building or grounds
‘‘(a) Whoever—
‘‘(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building
or grounds without lawful authority to do so;

You have to know that it's a restricted area and then you have to have enter it. Passing by a restricted area that you're unaware of is not the same thing.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Gabe Rottman, "How Big a Deal is H.R. 347, That “Criminalizing Protest” Bill?", ACLU, 8 Mar 2012.

Under the original language of the law, you had to act "willfully and knowingly" when committing the crime. In short, you had to know your conduct was illegal. Under H.R. 347, you will simply need to act "knowingly," which here would mean that you know you're in a restricted area, but not necessarily that you're committing a crime.

To me it sounds like the change in HR 347 is removing a showing of "mens rea" or "intent". And related to guns, if convicted the sentence is enhanced if going armed.

What if I go to a shopping center parking lot and only find out when I arrive that a political rally is being held?

 

[Rob G]

What if I go to a shopping center parking lot and only find out when I arrive that a political rally is being held?

1. A political rally doesn't necesarily qualify. The law specifies a restricted building or grounds.
2. When law enforcement, especially the Secret Service, restrict an area there's little doubt that it's restricted.
3. In the event that it is restricted: don't enter. Shop somewhere else that day.

 

[Ryanxia]

Oh goodie, 10 years in jail for being in the wrong area that was ok to be in last week and will be ok to be in next week, but not this week comrade.

What did you think this was a free speech zone?

 

[The Sarge]

The subject of the thread is a bill that affects demonstrating where the SS are positioned. This is not on topic for this forum.

Your hypothetical was a tangent off the main subject.

I started the thread and know the subject friend.

Oh goodie, 10 years in jail for being in the wrong area that was ok to be in last week and will be ok to be in next week, but not this week comrade.

What did you think this was a free speech zone?

My point exactly.
"Oh your in a SS zone....and look you have a gun......"
"But comrade it is not marked nor did I know"
"Hahahahaha welcome to the "New America"....

To me it sounds like the change in HR 347 is removing a showing of "mens rea" or "intent". And related to guns, if convicted the sentence is enhanced if going armed.

What if I go to a shopping center parking lot and only find out when I arrive that a political rally is being held?

Thank you Mr. Brown. Sylvan Learning Centers Reading and Comprehension class should erect a statue of you.
This^^^ is exactly my issue with this "quietly signed bill"....

 

[Owen Sparks]

The Constitution means whatever the current group in power says it means.

 

[cyclopsshooter]

^^^ Don't trust either..

 

[husbandofaromanian]

I understand their concern for security. We don't want any more attempts against our elected leaders. I will wait for a known abuse before I have a negative view of this new law. I was once held hostage in a shopping mall because Bush Sr. was in the Opryland area. I got a 2 hour lunch instead of an hour (couldn't leave the parking lot of the mall). When I approached an exit, there was no question I could not pass that point.

 

[Owen Sparks]

In politics there is always a goods reason and the real reason.

The good reason is a populist plea for safety, for the good of society or for "the children" while the real reason is to control you and protect those in power.