H.R.347 -- Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011

Congress via Thomas ^ | 1/19/2011 | Rep Thomas Rooney

[ZULU]

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[freeangel]

It is what it is and this corrupt and irresponsible congress has no trouble shutting down free speech. I feel like our Constitution has been put into play in an uneven game of Pacman. Bit by bit they will unravel and destroy our rights.

[Buckeye McFrog]

don’t existing laws for Defiant Trespass already have this covered?

[ZULU]

My GUESS is they do. The same with the weapons and personal injury.

Reading the bill after Judege Napolitano’s critique this morning on FOX seems to confirm his suspicions. This is a poorly veiled attempt to shield politicians from political protest.

They would rather have the media cover Presidential, Vice-Preisdential and House Speaker public events without embarrassing protestors present. Ditto to foreign visting “dignitaries”.

Its probably the sort of law Hugo Chavez would approve of.

And its bipartisan. Overwhelming support from Congressprostitutes of both political parties.

Expect them to be NEXT in the protest prevention program, followed by local elected officials and governors.

A Republic - if we can keep it - and we haven’t.

[driftdiver]

There must be an exemption for union members somewhere.

[Whenifhow]

See these two different threads with the same title.

Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ will make protest illegal

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2852948/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2852903/posts

[Another Kansan]

This does very little that hasn’t been law since the 70s. Before jumping to conclusions, look at the justification in the committee report and the previous statutory provision.

From the committee report on H.R. 347:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt9/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt9.pdf

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.

The prior statutory provisions are here:

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+874+1++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2818%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%281752%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

[Theoria]

Are ya gonna post who voted against it? Who voted for freedom?

[ZULU]

What a bill is intended to mean and what the administration employs it to mean, depending on its language, are two different things.

I KNOW what the Patriot Act was INTENDED to mean. I KNOW what it has allowed the government to do - and its not very healthy for a Democratic Republic.

There should be no retraint on peaceful protests against political figures within reasonable limits. And I think the wording in bill can be easily construed to allow an Administration to shield an office holder or foreign delegate from any embarassing publicity rather than to merely protect them from physical harm.

But, hey, you don’t have to take my word for it. A constitutional scholar and respected Jurist Andrew Napolitano, said as much this morning on FOX and Friends. Having read the bill, I came to that conclusion also.

[ZULU]

It passed overwhelmingly in both houses. Do a search under THOMAS for the bill. It has the entire Congressional history on it.

[Darren McCarty]

(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;

1. What the hell does "within such proximity to" mean?

2. We already have trespass and disorderly conduct laws in every state and jurisdiction.

[Darren McCarty]

That may be the intent, but what's important is the actual law itself, more so than the intent of what the law is.

I have a real problem with vague "catch-all" terms like "within such proximity to".

If it's about the White House or VP residence, make the law specific for that.

[Myrddin]

I think this is going to be a case where the boundaries of the prohibited area must be clearly identified. If not, the government will have no clear evidence that the law was violated.

[Theoria]

It was more a rhetorical than anything.

To: Whenifhow

The Vote.

Nays

Amash

Broun (GA)

Paul

3 posted on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 8:57:11 PM by Theoria (Rush Limbaugh: Ron Paul sounds like an Islamic terrorist)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

[Theoria]

The Vote.