3 ms·
That makes more sense: > Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 [sic] - Amends the federal criminal code to revise the prohibition ag
by brotherjerky 10y ago
That makes more sense:
> Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 [sic] - 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.
- gukov 10y ago> "HR 347, just signed without fanfare or news coverage by Barack Obama makes it illegal to protest anywhere the Secret Service is present. Who is present everywhere that Barack Obama goes? That's right, the Secret Service. Ergo, it is illegal to protest Barack Obama."
- aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 10y agohttps://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/summary https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/summary This bill made it a federal crime to trespass on the White House grounds, and it made other minor changes to an existing law. This bill amended a previously existing law, which can be read here, that was also about establishing a crime of being in restricted areas protected by the Secret Service. This bill's only significant change was adding the White House to the list of restricted places. Some say those existing provisions made protests illegal at political events where the Secret Service is protecting a candidate for office. Our understanding is that this is incorrect. The law applies to "cordoned off" areas or where a restriction is posted and where the general public has been cleared from. Additionally, it is unlikely the courts would uphold a restriction on access based on a political viewpoint.