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

There is another thread on here specifically titled about H.R.347 that I have been contributing to...just saw this one.

Can the Mod's merge them?

I've said it long ago. We've allowed this to go too far. The only solution left now is violent revolution. I hope you people stocked up when you should have.

There is no political solution anymore when the primaries are being stolen right before our eyes, and they aren't even trying to hide it. Imagine what the general election will be like.

They are getting ready for a revolution. You can see it in the markets, they are selling off all kinds of paper assets, gold, silver, commodities and stocks for cash. The bankers resigning, the war mongering. When will it break?

reply to post by GD21D


The revolution is coming we just need a good message, a sizable force, and good leadership. I predict within the next year America will be at war with it's own government.

In all honestly, who gives a #.

If people are truly sick and tired of it all, rise up. Instead of sitting protesting, organize yourselves with like minded people and take back your rights....and I do mean take them back. But I don't see people doing that. A few are hurting right now, most of us are kind of inconvenienced - but we still live comfortable lives and will do nothing. Until it is too late.

reply to post by AwakeinNM


Romney or Obama - both taking bribes from Goldman Sachs and other big corporations. Same crap, different party.

Oh, here is a list of the scumbags who voted for this.

Remember the names!

clerk.house.gov...



(and you can be sure Obama will sign this, he already signed NDAA what about that Patriot Act he said he was going to get rid of.......hmmmmm)

Here is a wild and crazy thought...have you done anything about it?...have you even attempted to participate in democracy about this?

I emailed both my senators and sent an email to the Whitehouse asking the President to Veto it...before you squeal revolution...why don't you ask someone to veto it or vote it down...

And guess what?...one of the senators offices actually responded already and said they appreciated my voice against this legislation...buncha hooey, but hey...at least I got a reply...

You can still protest, you just can't do it in washington out in front of the government buildings where the politicians can see you and where you will do the most damage for the american people. In other words you get to protest in areas where no one is going to give a sh*t and where the media will not be at to film the censored news.

It's interesting how so many are so quick to defend the flag, but so slow to defend what it means....

Another thing that bothers me is that it states that a person can be arrested for protesting even if they do not know that a government official is near by. So you could be having a protest lets say against Monsanto and conveniently they could come out and say Governor so and so is in here and he has secret service with him so your under arrest!

reply to post by jrkelly77


Bingo!!!

E-mail your Senators and the whitehouse...Democracy is not completely broken....yet.

Don't worry, the great militias of the country will eventually stop playing army men with there paintball guns and protect us! I can feel it!

Originally posted by Phantom28804
reply to post by GD21D

 

There is nothing that says you can't stand across the street and protest. Unless they declare the entire city a special event area (highly unlikely) you still have your voice. There is no reason that it is necessary to crash a rally etc, to impose your beliefs or grievances. I will never understand why people feel the need to stand on the doorstep to protest. If anyone has ever thought it legal to express your grievance to the President by running up to him and telling him face to face then you are only kidding yourself, and lucky if you don't get taken down by the Secret Service. That is a ridiculous assumption to have.

Read closely:

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

"within such proximity to."

The language, yes, is VERY broad. If it is within earshot.

Who decides what is disruptive? Who decides what the proximity is and to whom? To the people going to the event? That they have to walk bu, through, or near a protest group, which inconveniences or impedes them?

Who decides what is a national event? Sporting event, political convention, candidate at a town hall?

If protesters are across the street, and they are audible to those inside, it could be considered "disruptive."

And not that it is simply disorderly conduct or what have you, this makes it a FEDERAL crime. When simply failure to obey or disperse or "illegal assembly" is not strict enough, there is the federal crime that makes any building or grounds--when visited by anyone under Secret Service protection--restricted to anyone not authorized. What determines who is authorized? Why are the former prohibitions not adequate?

This is frightening and troubling.

The overly broadness of the language is also what is truly frightening, because we KNOW how law enforcements operates and interprets where the law is concerned.

THIS is the problem.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

You can still protest, you just can't do it in washington out in front of the government buildings where the politicians can see you and where you will do the most damage for the american people.

Or it is just an excuse so that politicians don't have to see the decay of civilization, so they rather have people do it where it is out of sight out of mind. Meaning the protestors won't have a voice, and it would be like protesting in front of deaf or blind people...No matter what it is wrong, and something like this should be out of the question.

Originally posted by Damrod
Here is a wild and crazy thought...have you done anything about it?...have you even attempted to participate in democracy about this?

I emailed both my senators and sent an email to the Whitehouse asking the President to Veto it...before you squeal revolution...why don't you ask someone to veto it or vote it down...

And guess what?...one of the senators offices actually responded already and said they appreciated my voice against this legislation...buncha hooey, but hey...at least I got a reply...

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

Attempted to participate? Seriously? Democracy hasn't been a participatory sport in this country in years. The only thing left is the charade of participation, and it means nothing because the candidates are hand-picked by the elites, not by We The People.

You can expect much more of this posturing. It means exactly nothing.

HR 347 can say whatever, and they can make breathing illegal if they wish.

When SHTF, the only good their papers will do is to line the cages we the people put them in.

Who will uphold their fancy rules when the police don't show up for work?

reply to post by Damrod

I sent emails and did a hand written letter theres nothing like old school letter writing to get the blood pumping lol.
If anyone feels like writing the President and insisting he vetoes this crap here is the address.

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Phantom28804

 

I have to agree with you and wrabbit, on this one. As much as I hate needless laws/bills, this one is a big *meh*.
My home state is Utah. If my Tea Party cronies and I want to protest DC we don't fly to DC, we make enough noise in Utah to get DC to listen.

Is this working well? Imagine several thousands persons in front of the Whitehouse, don't you think they would hear you better?

Peace out.

reply to post by jrkelly77


I searched to see if this link had been posted, which it had not. Here is the link to the official information of the bill.

The summation of the wording seems to be in regards to the president or 'National' conventions and people entering buildings were he or it is...

H.R. 347

here is the actual text:
Official Text

Yes and no....

The language is written in such a way that anyone "SPECIAL" in the general vicinity is a good enough reason to f you over....it's not cool and the language must be revised....i get it on one hand...but the language must be fixed....bad-bad language....