Was the House Sit-In Felonious?

a reply to: japhrimu
Violation of federal law ≠ felony.
If that's what you mean.

Do we have anyone in here with J.D. after their name?

I'll reserve any conclusions until some knowledgeable lawyers chime in.

Laws are created by politicians (that are disproportionately lawyers) to be understood primary by other lawyers. It's messed up system, but we the people allowed it to become this way.

a reply to: japhrimu

I guess it would depend upon the sentencing:

(a) Classification.—An offense that is not specifically classified by a letter grade in the section defining it, is classified if the maximum term of imprisonment authorized is—
(1) life imprisonment, or if the maximum penalty is death, as a Class A felony;

(2) twenty-five years or more, as a Class B felony;

(3) less than twenty-five years but ten or more years, as a Class C felony;

(4) less than ten years but five or more years, as a Class D felony;

(5) less than five years but more than one year, as a Class E felony;

(6) one year or less but more than six months, as a Class A misdemeanor;

(7) six months or less but more than thirty days, as a Class B misdemeanor;

(8) thirty days or less but more than five days, as a Class C misdemeanor; or

(9) five days or less, or if no imprisonment is authorized, as an infraction.

www.law.cornell.edu...#

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

I like a good discussion. I work alone and all night so it can get tedious here.

a reply to: Phage

Ok... Again, I'm not a lawyer, but if prosecuted in Federal Court wouldn't it?

a reply to: JinMI

Good comment, but now, I'm all Confucius.

Stupid lawyerese...

"So, you're saying there's a chance!"?

a reply to: japhrimu

I don't know either, but by the wording and how I'm perceiving it, it would be charged as a felony. Now what can be proved or plead down, I do not know. As Mystik said, we'll have to wait for some sort of lawyer to unmuddy the quagmire that is US Law.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Can't really argue with that...
I wish all laws were as easy to understand as, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

a reply to: japhrimu

but if prosecuted in Federal Court wouldn't it?

No. This is a federal law. That means a violation would be tried in a federal court.

That does not make it a felony unless minimum sentencing requirements make it so.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: japhrimu

No, wait... I CAN argue with that.

MysticMushroom and Phage:

The laws I referenced seem to be pretty clear, but super complicated... Not complicated in what DOESN'T qualify, but inclusive of LOTS of stuff, including what seemed to happen with the sit-in, which led to my original question...

I must reiterate/rephrase, I do NOT think this will/would be pursued, but it AT LEAST QUALIFIES, (depending on sentencing) doesn't it?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: japhrimu

I guess it would depend upon the sentencing:

(a) Classification.—An offense that is not specifically classified by a letter grade in the section defining it, is classified if the maximum term of imprisonment authorized is—
(1) life imprisonment, or if the maximum penalty is death, as a Class A felony;

(2) twenty-five years or more, as a Class B felony;

(3) less than twenty-five years but ten or more years, as a Class C felony;

(4) less than ten years but five or more years, as a Class D felony;

(5) less than five years but more than one year, as a Class E felony;

(6) one year or less but more than six months, as a Class A misdemeanor;

(7) six months or less but more than thirty days, as a Class B misdemeanor;

(8) thirty days or less but more than five days, as a Class C misdemeanor; or

(9) five days or less, or if no imprisonment is authorized, as an infraction.

www.law.cornell.edu...#

(2)a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.

Class A Misdemeanor unless they were armed.

a reply to: japhrimu

I totally get that it probably isn't going to be pursued, but what would happen, HYPOTHETICALLY, if an average citizen did the same?

(I realize this is getting to be a circular debate, but I'm just looking for validation of what I'm saying... And I won't continue much longer, because what else could I say?)

Let me change my question:
Technically, the sit-in COULD be felonious, right?
It was unlawful, at least, right? (Whether or not charges brought)

a reply to: japhrimu

Technically, the sit-in COULD be felonious, right?

As it was carried out? Highly unlikely.
I can't see anyone getting more than a year for sitting down and singing a song.

a reply to: japhrimu

The charges, I believe would be the same. The punishment would depend on how good the lawyer is!

a reply to: Phage

Got it. Thanks... To paraphrase you: IT COULD BE.



(Just being a devil's advocate now, for the sake of being a devil's advocate.)

Good stuff, guys... I think I'll take recess/vacation.

If anybody else has anything more to add, I'll still read it.

(Participation Stars from me to you, for all comments up to this point!!! YAY!!!)

originally posted by: Phage
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.

No. They lose that in the House Decorum Rules . Outside , off-duty no one gives a sh**

originally posted by: japhrimu
a reply to: japhrimu

I totally get that it probably isn't going to be pursued, but what would happen, HYPOTHETICALLY, if an average citizen did the same?

(I realize this is getting to be a circular debate, but I'm just looking for validation of what I'm saying... And I won't continue much longer, because what else could I say?)

Let me change my question:
Technically, the sit-in COULD be felonious, right?
It was unlawful, at least, right? (Whether or not charges brought)

There you go.
If you got a few dozen of your friends together and performed a sit-in in the US House of Representatives, you know damned well you would all be hauled away in handcuffs.
The Republicans are blamed for impeding when they operate according to the rules of the Senate (filibuster).

This debate is rather moot.

Article 1, Section 6

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place

They had not left and then returned, sit ins are rather peaceful and with the House in recess there was no felonious disruption of government function.

Trespassing maybe. Sedition perhaps, but that is a long shot as no one tried to gather firearms. Now if Ryan were to call the House back into session and have a vote on them for violation of oath of office and have them removed from their elected offices...then you have something.

Yah, meh, the lawmakers are exempt form the laws they force on others. If you even set foot in that place you'd be arrested.

Big deal anyway, they're little sit in was a joke. Akin to staging a sit in in you own house, who cares? These people work there, some demonstration.

Maybe if they picketed a military industrial arms factory with signs and bullhorns...