Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: HR 347: The anti-Occupy law

Posted 2 years ago on March 3, 2012, 6:39 p.m. EST by OldCrow (22)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

US Congress passes authoritarian anti-protest law

By Tom Carter 
3 March 2012

A bill passed Monday in the US House of Representatives and Thursday in the Senate would make it a felony—a serious criminal offense punishable by lengthy terms of incarceration—to participate in many forms of protest associated with the Occupy Wall Street protests of last year. Several commentators have dubbed it the “anti-Occupy” law, but its implications are far broader. The bill—H.R. 347, or the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011”—was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, while only Ron Paul and two other Republicans voted against the bill in the House of Representatives (the bill passed 388-3). Not a single Democratic politician voted against the bill.

"...The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act is plainly in violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which was passed in 1791 in the aftermath of the American Revolution. The First Amendment provides: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (The arrogance of the Democratic and Republican politicians is staggering—what part of “Congress shall make no law” do they not understand?) H.R. 347 comes on the heels of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which was signed by President Obama into law on December 31, 2011. The NDAA gives the president the power to order the assassination and incarceration of any person—including a US citizen—anywhere in the world without charge or trial…."

"….What lies behind the unprecedented attack underway on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights is a growing understanding in the ruling class that the protests that took place around the world against social inequality in 2011 will inevitably re-emerge in more and more powerful forms in 2012 and beyond, as austerity measures and the crashing economy make the conditions of life more and more impossible for the working class. The virtually unanimous support in Congress H.R. 347, among Democrats as well as Republicans, reflects overriding sentiment within the ruling establishment for scrapping all existing democratic rights in favor of dictatorial methods of rule…"

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/mar2012/prot-m03.shtml

19 Comments

19 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Tiger (3) 2 years ago

you can copy the url above and put this on your facebook, twitter, inside comments to most news sites like HuffingtonPost. Lets wake up another couple million because most of " We the People" really still do not know...

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

er

looks like there's an exception for CIA operation

as I read the offense is applied to violent cases and possession of weapons

non violent cases aren't defined in this

[-] 3 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

The virtually unanimous support for this bill is the striking key! Why? What do they know that creates an urgent need to pass NDAA and now this! Concluding that, "establishment for scrapping all existing democratic rights in favor of dictatorial methods of rule…" is an unacceptable option! We should know their motive for these actions.

Maybe they have reason to expect unrest that might lead to violence, destruction, and worse because of a bleak future. If "Hoovervilles" begin here, they want them managed carefully. There may be reasons we are not aware of, but that's unacceptable as well. Forget preventing a panic, tell us why these conclusions were made!

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

You bet they have reason to expect unrest. They're going to be smiling and assuring everyone right up until the end, but they know very well it isn't far off now.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4449) 2 years ago

Hi alter, And those reported 800 FEMA internment camps.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

This law is applicable "if"

‘(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.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf

However, while it may not be obvious on its face how this could be applied against a garden variety protester, there's enough ambiguity where this may be possible under certain circumstances. For instance, while it seems to be exclusively aimed at protecting the President or those under secret service protection (as if we don't already have enough laws that adequately accomplish this), it appears to be "potentially" amenable to a broader construction.

‘‘(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and

An "event of national significance"? This is very broad and ambiguous language (and possibly unconstitutional). I mean, say people want to protest something like a G8 Summit, and the President or Vice President happens to be attending that day. Suddenly, this special law could apply to what has traditionally been considered a garden variety protest.

Okay, the one caveat is ... it seems likely that the government would have to prove "intent" (e.g. establish the requisite mens rea) with respect to any individual charged with violating this law. While it may seem like the defendant merely had to "knowingly" enter a government building without authority to do so, it appears that the defendant would also have to know that the President (or someone covered under this law) is in the building, the ambiguity notwithstanding.

However, once again, the President already enjoys this protection under current law, so we have to wonder what the intention really is behind this legislation?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

well the grounds have been extended

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama, defending the switch in location of the Group of Eight (G-8) summit to Camp David from his home city of Chicago, said on Tuesday that the scenic retreat promised fine weather and a more intimate setting for world leaders to talk.

The May 18-19 gathering had initially been scheduled for Chicago, which hosts a NATO summit for leaders a few days later, and the switch to rural Maryland was claimed as a victory by activists who vow to flood the Midwest city with protesters.

"G-8 tends to be a more informal setting in which we talk about a wide range of issues in a pretty intimate way, and the thinking was that people would enjoy being in a more casual backdrop," Obama told reporters at the White House.

The G-8 consists of Russia, Britain, Canada, France, Japan, Italy, Germany and the United States.

Obama will likely use the G-8, viewed by policy experts as a top forum to build consensus among world powers on delicate issues like security and the global economy, to keep up international pressure over Iran's nuclear program.

He is also trying to build a united front to stop violence by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against his government's opponents. That effort was recently thwarted at the United Nations by Russia and China, who voted against a Security Council resolution condemning Assad's bloody crackdown.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-obama-g8tre8251sh-20120306,0,6243102.story

sounds like a war council

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Wait a second. Before you flip out.

This is the current law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752

Here is the new one: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1794

[-] 1 points by annam (1) 2 years ago

This bill is just an addition to the already federal law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752

it just adds the white house and vp permanent residence in addition to what is already in place as law, no?

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Please see my previous post about this below. In my opinion, this is an act of treason on the part of Congress.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/very-important-please-read-will-obama-commit-treas/

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Bill Text 112th Congress (2011-2012) H.R.347.RS

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 termrestricted 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 termother 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.'.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...mp/~c112lnIycM::

[-] 1 points by Obbop (2) from Springfield, MO 2 years ago

The elite's government FEARS you!!!!!!

Their fear is manifested in the laws they pass. Here is a law banning what MANY of the Founders wrote is a RIGHT of citizens when a government no longer represents them:

Section 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises,
o teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any state,territory,district or possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of
any such government; or Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or
destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues,
circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or
printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty,necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with,any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the
purposes thereof -

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this
section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty
years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any
department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms ''organizes'' and ''organize'', with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

Corporate America is becoming increasingly more powerful and
influential. Yet, according to the government of for and by the elites YOU, a citizen, have to accept whatever the government does with NO recourse other than voting...... and there is sufficient proof that shows to me voting is worthless since the entrenched power structure ensures that the emplaced elite class can not be removed.

The Founders specifically wrote of the people's right to abolish a government when it no longer represents them.

Tyranny is upon is!!!

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

That section, 2385, is contained in HR 347, passed by both houses of Congress? If so, that is the most frightening thing I have ever read.

So the Founding Fathers had the right to throw off their oppressors, but Congress has just made it illegal for us to do so? If true, then OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, we would have moved beyond economic enslavement to political enslavement as well.

This would mean that government of the people, by the people, and for the people has perished from our part of the earth.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4449) 2 years ago

Hi OldCrow, Thank you for post and link. Best Regards

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

you should provide a list of who voted for that! then we have a target of who to remove from office

[-] 1 points by ColleenOJH (1) from Jackson, WY 2 years ago

the Nays: Rep. Justin Amash [R, MI-3] Rep. Paul Broun [R, GA-10] Rep. Keith Ellison [D, MN-5]

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I thought Ron Paul voted against HR 347, and that he is only 1 of 3 that did. Are you talking about different legislation here or 347?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

thanks

[Removed]