Was the House Sit-In Felonious?

This is sort of a question, and I could be way off base here, but if I'm NOT way off base, I'm surprised I haven't seen this mentioned in the other threads...

"Was the HoR sit-in felonious?"

According to:
www.govtrack.us...

As of February 29, 2012,

A) Whoever--
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;

(c)In this section—
(1)the term restricted buildings or grounds means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area—
(B)of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting;

I saw that Bernie made an appearance, so Secret Service was there, no?

From:
uscode.house.gov...
(c) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be prosecuted by the United States attorney in the Federal district court having jurisdiction of the place where the offense occurred.


So... Seems like it falls under the conditions, doesn't it?
(I only thought of this because of that list of 26 participants who are "legal" gun owners...) If the sit-in WAS felonious, aren't they automatically forfeiting their gun-ownership rights?

(Caveats: I am pretty much pro individual rights, especially 2nd amendment, and I don't like the "assaults" on our rights, so... If anyone wants to redo this post, and it's references, better, do it. I wouldn't mind.)

(It's getting late, I dunno how long I'll be up... I also don't know how much more info I can contribute...)

I look forward to what "both sides" have about this, so go for it...

Sources-
www.govtrack.us...
www.govtrack.us...
uscode.house.gov...

Were charges pressed? If not, then for all practical purposes, no.

a reply to: japhrimu

As much as I would like it to be...I don't think it was. They didn't impede ingress or egress. They just refused to do anything. The speaker didn't need to stop talking so not really anything there. If he claimed he couldn't speak then maaaybe???

Also maybe something with the secret service. Is Bern forced to have personnel or did he hire them? Are they actual SS?

In any case, should any of them be convicted of a felony then I do believe their right to purchase and own a firearm are forfeit.

a reply to: Phage
From the original law: ( uscode.house.gov... )
"It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons-"
Not being charged doesn't necessarily mean "not felonious," or "not unlawful..." I could agree with they're "not felons..." because they haven't been convicted... (If the distinction makes any sense...)

a reply to: JinMI
I thought they were impeding, weren't they? I couldn't (could barely) hear the speaker at the podium...

a reply to: japhrimu

I would think if they were impeding, he would not be able to speak at all. Since he did still speak and wrap up, doubt any charges would stick. However, stranger things have happened.

a reply to: japhrimu

I thought they were impeding, weren't they? I couldn't (could barely) hear the speaker at the podium...

It's not the first time the House has been interrupted by out of order members and I don't think it will be the last.



Could be worse

a reply to: JinMI

I see what you're saying... You see what I'm saying, though, don't you?
(I really am just posing the question... I don't expect anything to actually come out as I am implying with the question...)

a reply to: japhrimu

Yea, I see what your saying, and I agree. I also agree that it's highly doubtful that we'll see charges as soon as we see "common sense" gun control.

a reply to: Phage

I'd prefer the Nigerian example rather than what we saw the other day.

a reply to: JinMI
More honest?
Less subtle?

a reply to: Phage

I didn't say it was the first time it's happened... But just because others do it doesn't make it right...
I thought I gave a compelling argument with the gov's own words, though...

(I wanna say, "technically," and push my glasses up by the bridge, but just to be funny, and technical...)

At the risk of straying from my own topic, I don't like the over-criminalizing of everything, which leads to losing/stripping rights...

I don't really want to take away their rights... Just trying to point out possible hypocrisy by those who would whittle away US Citizens' rights...

a reply to: Phage

Real emotion as well. I think they actually cared.

a reply to: japhrimu
Members of the House don't have a right to peaceful protest?

The "impeding" argument is specious. The gavel in the House probably requires annual replacement. The operations of Congress are "impeded" quite regularly.

a reply to: Phage

Not in the way they did, I don't think, according to the law(s) I referenced...

a reply to: japhrimu

I don't really like the law I referenced, either, for the record, but it did pass the House, almost unanimously...

a reply to: japhrimu

Since no charges were brought, it would seem your opinion is just that.

a reply to: Phage

Yes. You are correct... BUT:

Could it be felonious? "Technically?"

a reply to: japhrimu

Ok so I read the actual page and there's this, as also posted above:

(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

So yes, I would agree that they should have to face the punishment. However under the list there is not a mention of felonious behavior.

(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.

a reply to: JinMI

But...
"It shall be unlawful..."

Combined with:

"Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be prosecuted by the United States attorney in the Federal district court having jurisdiction of the place where the offense occurred."

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know, but doesn't this mean "felony?" (I honestly don't know.)

BTW,
Phage and JinMi:
I know most people are probably asleep at this time, so thanks for participating.