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:
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.
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.