It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

H.R. 347: Protesting to be made illegal in the presence of politicians!?

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Instead of jumping up and down like my head was on fire, I popped off emails to both of my Senators...and asked them to vote it down....but it appears it has already passed the Senate according the the House web page...I suppose we need to be emailing the POTUS and try to get him to veto it.

Here is a direct link to the bill...read it carefully. The Language is waaay to vague and is a direct attack on the First Amendment and I assume it is fired right at the 99% movement and the occupy movement

clerk.house.gov...

If you have a hard time getting to it, here is the text:

--H.R.347--

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.'.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.


edit on 2/29/2012 by Damrod because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/29/2012 by Damrod because: Added in the text of bill




posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by sykonot
I say we all buy orange jumpsuits and just run around DC all day. You know buying ice cream and stuff. I mean we are all terrorists now according to them. They insist on wasting time passing "laws" that really do nothing for anyone but them. To further separate the civilian from the officer. Divide and conquer. America has been going down this road for some time. We were never able to stop it, we allowed a two-party system and that is what we now have. The only issue is the two-party system is now one party and it serves it own purposes and then pretends to hate one another to divide the opinions of the people. Repubs and Dems have no control over this country people. We do.


I like that idea. Also...we should probably just go ahead start reporting "suspected terrorist activities" according to those new FBI guidelines that came out.

Let's see. Theoretically speaking...if all 300 million Americans were to submit 5 of them per day the FBI would have 1.5 billion reports per day to sift through. That's 547.5 billion "reports" per year. I'm sure they will be happy to know the new system is working so well.

Bonus points for submitting Dick Cheney's name 5 times per day all year long. I hear the guy uses encrypted data connections and even went so far as to blur out his house on Google Earth. Seems pretty fishy to me.

Let's waterboard his ass!!



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Damrod
 


Christ. That was fast.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


They're essentially cornering the masses into a be ignored, or go to war domestically, kind of deal. At least that's how some of these dumb #s think, im sure of it.

Hopefully this bill holds little clout. Hopefully if the people decide certain things to be no longer acceptable, that we will have the means to overcome them, along with retaining our rights.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Well it appears the Bill did pass both house and senate, but the official status says "2/27/2012 Motion to Reconsider laid on the table without objection"

So perhaps it isn't all the way through. I sent an email to the Whitehouse anyway and ask the President to Veto it.

If I suddenly stop posting...well...you'll know what happened...LMAO!



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
So this rule tabled and voted by the legislatives will make it illegal, against society's laws for the People, or at least a segment of it, to protest against elected officials given powers by the electorate, or economic leaders group together whom the masses sweat, toil and sacrifices where shed, within proximity of their presence to deny ignorances?

Is this how the 1% of the elites, rich and powerful, treat the People? If it is allowed in a democratic republic such as USA, I dare not imagine the lesser democracies around the world. Guess it's just 'another day in paradise'.....


edit on 29-2-2012 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
How do I go about getting a restraining order against any politician being within 100 ft of me?



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
More proof the US is about to become a Police State. And the naysayers say we are the crazy ones. Oh everything will be OK, just look the other way. That mentality has driven us under. Occupiers must be doing something right. News Bunnies say they should get a job and sweat the way the American Dream is meant to be achieved. Um HELLO, THATS WHY THEY ARE OCCUPYING...they grew tired of their sweat being taken advantage of, a few getting rich because of many. 2012. The year TSHTF.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I was almost to flag and star this until I read the Bill.


SUMMARY AS OF:
11/17/2011--Reported to Senate amended. (There are 3 other summaries)

Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 - Amends the federal criminal code to revise the prohibition against entering restricted federal buildings or grounds to impose criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly enters any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority. Defines "restricted buildings or grounds" as a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of: (1) the White House or its grounds or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds, (2) a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, or (3) a building or grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance.


The summary is accurate.

This is about people who trespass illegally. This has nothing to do with true protest. This will only affect people who are engaging in criminal activity pretending it's protest. The basis of this thread is not true.

Folks, read these things before you take peoples word for what's in them.

As to Secret Service Protection for candidates for President, SO? They need it. The world is full of dangerous nut jobs and while campaigning they are sitting ducks. Of course they need protection.

Glitter Bombing
Some of us mature when we grow out of childhood, some don't.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by xacto
 





They're essentially cornering the masses into a be ignored, or go to war domestically, kind of deal. At least that's how some of these dumb #s think, im sure of it.

Yep.

It shall begin on May 19-20, in Chicago, Illinois at the G8 meeting.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Ok...Nows the time to get really pissed.

I never, ever, for all the tin in the world, thought this day would come. NEVER. I would have called every single one of you out.

I'm dumbfounded.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I was almost to flag and star this until I read the Bill.


SUMMARY AS OF:
11/17/2011--Reported to Senate amended. (There are 3 other summaries)

Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 - Amends the federal criminal code to revise the prohibition against entering restricted federal buildings or grounds to impose criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly enters any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority. Defines "restricted buildings or grounds" as a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of: (1) the White House or its grounds or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds, (2) a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, or (3) a building or grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance.


The summary is accurate.

This is about people who trespass illegally. This has nothing to do with true protest. This will only affect people who are engaging in criminal activity pretending it's protest. The basis of this thread is not true.

Folks, read these things before you take peoples word for what's in them.

As to Secret Service Protection for candidates for President, SO? They need it. The world is full of dangerous nut jobs and while campaigning they are sitting ducks. Of course they need protection.

Glitter Bombing
Some of us mature when we grow out of childhood, some don't.


There is only one problem, and that is that it is too open for interpretation and manipulation...some of the conditions are just wide open. I emailed both Senators and the Whitehouse and asked them to vote it down or Veto it based on the vagueness of language and interpretation. This thing "could" be used to silence anyone..."You have to leave because we said so...there is a citizen being protected by the SS in a nearby location"...

No...I agree with what the bill is trying to do on one hand...stop the idiots...BUT...you cannot punish everyone for the stupidity of a few loose cannons...



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Yep..not seeing the issue with this actually

Actually, I am somewhat shocked this wasn't already in law
Incidently, glitter bombing would not actually fall under this as it does not impede the politician from doing his business.
Standing in the street so a politician cannot go to an event, yes...chaining yourself to a door, yes..glitterbombing, no.

I don't think this is needed mind you..but I don't see this as the end of protesting..just the end of some potential asshats crossing the line and stopping people from doing their job through force.

I read this thread and became quite angry actually..went to go see this evil hidden language that is going to ban us from politicians...read it twice actually, making sure I wasn't missing something..
ATS...stop crying freaking wolf...one day something serious may come down the pipe and we will have been told such bull over and over by you lot that it will pass relatively unaware.
Your senators should hang up on you

Frankly, this should be a law for not just politicians, but everyone.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Yep..not seeing the issue with this actually

Actually, I am somewhat shocked this wasn't already in law
Incidently, glitter bombing would not actually fall under this as it does not impede the politician from doing his business.
Standing in the street so a politician cannot go to an event, yes...chaining yourself to a door, yes..glitterbombing, no.

I don't think this is needed mind you..but I don't see this as the end of protesting..just the end of some potential asshats crossing the line and stopping people from doing their job through force.

I read this thread and became quite angry actually..went to go see this evil hidden language that is going to ban us from politicians...read it twice actually, making sure I wasn't missing something..
ATS...stop crying freaking wolf...one day something serious may come down the pipe and we will have been told such bull over and over by you lot that it will pass relatively unaware.
Your senators should hang up on you

Frankly, this should be a law for not just politicians, but everyone.


You missed the point.

The language is written as such as any protest could be shut down because 'someone special" is close by. Re-read it again and consider a person with a banner standing outside the capitol building....and then the thugs swarm in and tell you that you have to go or else...

This is a measure to keep folks from line of site...I guess even the wicked have a tinge of conscience and they don't want to have to see the folks they are screwing over daily. This is so the elite can go about their day to day treachery and not be reminded of the masses they are f'ing over with their attacks on the Bill of Rights....



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Damrod
 


Show me where it says line of sight
From what I read, its anyone obstructing..aka, blocking.
standing on the sidewalk shouting and waving a sign is not part of this and no matter how much you twist and spin, its still not there.
So, show me what I am overlooking here.

I am not -for- this law mind you, it arguably could be applied to those disruptors at a speech whom start shouting out...in saying that however, when has that ever changed anyones minds or brought awareness..bit of a silly and pointless thing to do, but ultimately harmless

But ya, not seeing the extreme view this thread suggests in its language anywhere...not even if you take creative liberties with its wording.



Add: This would, however, have hammered the many demonstrations in Wisconson where the people did a sleep in at the city hall. no doubt this is to cut down on those nasty people sitting in as arguably obstructing. Still on the fence about that movement that amounted to little. (some recalls)
edit on 29-2-2012 by SaturnFX because: a thought



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


article (a) section 2 is far too vague

article (c) section 1 (subset A thru D i believe) - don't have it pulled up....

this language is far too vague and can be used at a whim...if you consider yourself a protester with a sign and suddenly the SS descends on you because a "person if interest" has came into the area...wtf...this is not right...wake your sleeping self up...this is not proper wording for a "logical" law....this is an open door to stammer the first amendment....and you prob know this but are too shocked to acknowledge it...

Open your eyes as a potential protestor...this law is killing you rights....
edit on 2/29/2012 by Damrod because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


Why do you always defend the government, why?! There is no point!



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by gandhi
Ok...Nows the time to get really pissed.

I never, ever, for all the tin in the world, thought this day would come. NEVER. I would have called every single one of you out.

I'm dumbfounded.


Pissed off about what exactly? Can you expound on this? Or is this in response to the erroneous thread headline?



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damrod
Instead of jumping up and down like my head was on fire, I popped off emails to both of my Senators...and asked them to vote it down....but it appears it has already passed the Senate according the the House web page...I suppose we need to be emailing the POTUS and try to get him to veto it.


Maybe some civics 101 is in store here.

A bill that originates in the House has to be at least presented to the Senate for amendments. Once passed there it is returned to the House -- not the President as you suggested -- to confirm and/or debate the Senatorial amendments.

Edit to Add:

By the time I posted it has indeed passed both Houses -- Senate Amendments were consolidated. Now it is on to the President. This of course doesn't diminish from the premise of my post. That many do not know the legislative process.
edit on 29-2-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by MyMindIsMyOwn
Thank you for providing those additional links, they have proved very useful for me in order to attempt a half way intelligent response....

However in reading both section 1752 of the code and HR 347 as it was passed I cannot help but think that this is meaningless. It's just another long draw of blood by an already bloated parasite on the citizenry of the US. The meat and potatoes of both are exactly the same, the 'spirit' of the law here appears unchanged in my opinion. So what was there to clarify? What was there to correct? Am I missing something here??



This makes all the difference; honestly. The fact that you did not rely on 3rd party commentary to question is a huge accomplishment and is what every citizen needs to do. I hope that in my current engagement I wasn't coming off as championing the bill or its intent; but rather, unsure it was what people are making it out to be based on what another person has said it to be. All in an attempt to push a narrative to the reader base.

To that, I say bravo to you! You are asking questions that are your own! I do not have answers to you at this time, but I will contemplate your questions so you and I can discuss those.




top topics



 
28
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join