Posted on 03/12/2016 6:48:09 PM PST by GLDNGUN
I apologize if this has already been posted. Mods feel free to remove this thread if it has but is everyone aware that it is ILLEGAL to protest at a Trump rally?
I agree.
I was just watching the KC rally. Trump said he will start pressing charges.
It is understandable, and he is clearly sending out notice to everyone, so it is also fair.
I was also thinking of posting something along this post’s lines, but you got it first.
Good post.
Bookmark
I want to hear Trump say “When I’m president this suppression of free speech will stop!”
why can’t Trump charge moveon and send the organisers to jail
We really are separating the man from the boys.
18 US Code Sec. 1752
(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.
Don’t be trying to confuse the trumpbots with stupid ol facts.
bttt
..Again, don’t argue with me. This is not something that is in question or doubt. ...
Don’t argue with me? Are you kidding. I have never read anything as condescending ever on FR, and it is in question and it is in doubt.
You might want to Google the US Attorney General’s manual for United States Attorneys on how they should handle 18USC section 1752 cases. I don’t care if you do or don’t though.
Cornell Information Institute - 18 U.S. Code § 1752 - Restricted building or grounds
Go for it libs!
Meh. There’s been so much lawbreaking with lack of enforcement over the last eight years, nothing at all surprises me anymore.
I find it entertaining when the FACTS (in writing) end up being posted just prior to your claims that those are not the facts.
Secret Service Agents ARE a part of the official government and where they are is an official function.
“A stump speech by a candidate running in a primary held by a political party doesn’t seem to qualify as orderly conduct of government business or an ‘’Official function’’.. Political parties are not part of the government.”
...but impeding the mission of the Secret Service certainly is. These guys are looking out for serious armed wackos, they don’t need to deal with pizza-faced college kids.
..I find it entertaining when the FACTS (in writing) end up being posted just prior to your claims that those are not the facts...
And it is also entertaining reading interpretations by people who have read a law and not reading how the Prosecutors and courts interpret it and how US Atgorneys are instructed to apply it. The law has vagueness and First Amendment problems. But, you are free to interpret it any way that makes you happy.
Do you have a link to the law? Thanks!
Something even more simple is the charge of disorderly conduct. Often referred to in some states as disturbing the peace. Below is the Indiana definition:
(a) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:
(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;
(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or
(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;
commits disorderly conduct, a Class B misdemeanor
Low level crime, but it will send a message if the clowns inside the rallies who insist on being a distraction. Jail them and let them bond out after they get a shower.
Get’em, Trump. #Mogul
I would imagine, as an example, that preventing a group of Secret Service agents from escorting a protected person would also be illegal, since it interferes with the security work they are doing, even though the act of driving down the street isn't a "government function" for the person riding in the motorcade.
But even without the particular law it is unacceptable for protesters to disrupt meetings or rallies, just as those same people would consider people disrupting a Sanders rally, or one of their discussion groups on campus to be unacceptable.
Wyoming thinks he’s wonderful. You have to forgive them though, they live a sheltered existence amidst the rattlesnakes and mountain lyins.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.