Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Wake up America! - Obama Signs Anti-Protest Trespass Bill

Posted 6 years ago on March 11, 2012, 5:01 p.m. EST by JoeTheFarmer (2654)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Only days after clearing Congress, US President Barack Obama signed his name to H.R. 347 on Thursday, officially making it a federal offense to cause a disturbance at certain political events — essentially criminalizing protest in the States.

But that is not all

HR347, "the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011" makes it illegal to protest in the vicinity of anyone who rates a Secret Service detail (even if you aren't aware of the person's presence), thus sparing politicians and VIPs the ugly and unseemly spectacle of having to confront voters who disagree with their policies.

Out of 535 members, only three Congressmen voted against it.

  1. Broun, Paul [R] GA-10
  2. Amash, Justin [R] MI-3
  3. Paul, Ronald [R] TX-14

Only 3 out of 535 voted NO.


So now you cannot walk up to a congressman, senator, or executive department head and tell them you do not agree with their position.

What right will they take away next. Wake up America!



Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 6 years ago

Wow, it passed even easier than the NDAA. This government makes me sick to the core of my being. I'm ashamed to be an American with what they've been doing the past 12 years.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

(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.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

I don't like the order of the writing

the violent exceptions should be added at the end not half way through

there are 2 issues at fault in this writing

and/or ?

can the violent offender be penalized twice ?

for both the violent and non-violent offense

I would use "or" the document uses "and"

the statements are unnecessarily jarring the structure

the state defines an offense

and follows that with a penalty defined for an offense not listed directly above it

but rather the penalty when compounded with violence

This makes it inefficient as one must read through the violent case to find the actual penalty for the non violet case


I am disappointed that this was allowed to pass

law is complicate enough as it is

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 6 years ago

They're going to have to get more jails built. A lot more.


[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 6 years ago

I thought Bush was bad with the Patriot Act, which is a clear violation of our constitutional rights. This congress and president are stripping away rights one by one.

They are also creating "No Speech Zones" around the country. One man with a sign was arrested for standing in from of the Supreme Court. He stood in silent protest and was more than 300 feet from the entrance.

Wake up America!

[-] 2 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 6 years ago

The two most recent administrations (Bush & Obama) have been largely the same in policy.

The two party system is a distraction of the most basic denominator.

Our system is beyond broken.

[-] 2 points by MichaelB (128) 6 years ago

It needs to be challenged. This would seem to be something the ACLU should be fighting, by looking for a test case. There can't be areas where rights are denied.



[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 6 years ago

Heh, where are the Obama apologists, I'd like to see them smooth this one over.

[-] 0 points by sunstar (-14) 6 years ago

Yeah,that's not going to happen. They avoid post's that conflict with their Drone programming and they have no talking points for,or moveon.org hasn't given them anything to regurgitate.

[-] 1 points by zymergy (236) 6 years ago

The law in question is pretty short and can be found here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf

[-] 1 points by reckoning (53) 6 years ago

Obama at work!! vote for him!!!!

[-] 1 points by JesusRepublican (110) 6 years ago

Calm down people. I made him do it for YOUR own good. Everyone knows I actually run the Whitehouse, after all, I am white.

It needs to be this way for you people are getting quite a bit carried away with your jealousy of our success in DC. We are there because you all wanted us to be and we're getting much richer, JUST LIKE YOU EXPECT US TO DO.

Look, times are tough and you poor people have no clue what it's like to have to stress over things like should I wear my Patek or Sea Dweller to the big jam at Gate's place on the Rivera, I've actually missed my private chartered leer jet take off time (thank yall very much) trying to decide.

It gets much worse than that, you people send ugly emails with actual profanity in them threatening all manners of acts against nature that do often tempt many of us, to invite you to tend to our "lounge areas".

Just last month one of you sent an ugly email saying harsh things about my "hair piece". That's what did it and I made sure that all DC dieties would be safe from you mobs of savages. We really don't want to see any of you get hurt.


[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (5843) 6 years ago

Hi Joe, Thank you for post. Best Regards

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

Does this include people who "rate" a secret service detail (that is, are entitled to one on demand) or people who actually have a Secret Service detail? I'm not sure but I think any Congressional Rep may be entitled to a Secret Service detail on demand, though few actually have one.

I'm not sure what the rule is for Presidential candidates. Perhaps it has to do with polled or publicly percieved levels of support, I can't imagine some so-called third party candidate who is only on the ballot in a few states and unlikely to get more than a few thousand votes being entitled to a Secret Service detail, I think Nader was in 2000 but he refused.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 6 years ago

From the bill (now a law)

"the term ‘other 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."

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago




[-] -1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 6 years ago

Sorry, but a lot of us have no reason to walk up to Congressmen or the like. In this country petitions, legal documents, and the public joining together create the standard for change, legally, believe it or not!.

I must admit, if I were a Congressman, or woman, I wouldn't want the majority of you who are speaking your minds on here walking up on me either!!! Some sound crazy as hell!!!

As far as America waking up, there were worse things taking place before this and now that the blinders have been snatched off, everyone is flabbergasted, acting befuddled and hurt?
The people in this country have always had the right to go with the elites flow of doing things, as long as it benefited them too! This is like the ostrich hiding its head in the sand, never realizing there was a river right next to him ready to engulf him too! I don't feel sorry for anyone other than those who have always known that this is a government that always failed to follow its Constitutional laws.

[-] 13 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 6 years ago

So you don't think passing a law that violates the FIRST amendment to the United States Constitution (The Bill of Rights) is a big deal. You have a strange sense of priorities. It pretty much outlaws protesting in Washington DC.

The whole point of the first amendment is to allow us to protest in near our representatives. Even is it makes them uncomfortable. In fact that is why we have the first amendment.

You don't need the first amendment to protect my right to protest in a corn field in the middle of Iowa where nobody can see me.

What they passed was a law.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[-] -3 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 6 years ago

It amends a law that already existed..." the federal criminal code to revise the prohibition against entering restricted federal buildings or grounds

Please read what the Bill States and see if you have a reason to be in that area...why would you? Are you sure you want to get that close? It "imposes 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."

Once again, I don't see where my first amendment rights are being violated...GW already did that with the Patriot Act and the TSA feeling up everyone's package....go after that dumb ass act!!!

Like I said, the majority of you on here have half a mind set and are prepared for anarchy anyway, so I wouldn't want half of you even looking at me cross-eyed!!

[-] 5 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 6 years ago

You are correct to some degree I found that actual text of the bill.

H.R. 347 does make one noteworthy change, which may make it easier for the Secret Service to overuse or misuse the statute to arrest lawful protesters. Most crimes require the government to prove a certain state of mind. Under the original language of the law, you had to act "willfully and knowingly" when committing the crime. In short, you had to know your conduct was illegal. Under H.R. 347, you will simply need to act "knowingly," which here would mean that you know you're in a restricted area, but not necessarily that you're committing a crime.

It also broadens from restricted buildings to "special event of national significance." which is open to interpretation. You could say the Super Bowl is a "special event of national significance."


[-] 2 points by Closed (2) 6 years ago

I partly agree with you but its the fact of the looseness around (2) and (3). Especially 3, a building or grounds "restricted due to a 'special event of national significance'"?

So, to me, and I'm sure every prosecuting attorney out there rubbing their hands together thinking about dollar signs, this says "anywhere you can argue its a special event of national significance where someone does not want to be met with a protest".

It doesn't even require anything involving a politician, the secret service, or any person at all. It says ANY building or grounds "restricted" for a special event that could be viewed as being "significant" to the nation. That sounds VERY subjective to me.

Edit: Also I'd like to know a clear definition of who or what determines my state of being with or without 'lawful authority' to enter a certain building or grounds.

[-] 3 points by SatanDemocrat (-24) 6 years ago

If I were pulling the stunts that many of them are and have, I'd likely be shuffling to legislate me and my cronies as much additional buffer zone as possible.

[-] -2 points by SatanDemocrat (-24) 6 years ago

Don't blame Obama, the Republicans made him do it, he simply had no choice and was so emotionally shaken over it that he could not compose a "signing statement". He meant to anyhow and we all know it's the thought that counts.

[-] 5 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 6 years ago

LOL That is the funniest post of the day.

[-] -2 points by SatanDemocrat (-24) 6 years ago

Pour the votes to it, bro!

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

What did you do with Beelzebublibertarian and Diablodominionist?

Are you holding them hostage?

That's not very nice you know.

[-] 0 points by SatanDemocrat (-24) 6 years ago

I simply plant the right seeds, clearly something most of you people know nothing about....

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Well, satan. That depends on whether you're speaking metaphorically or not.

You're alter ego failed to show up on French Rd last night.

So you've lost some cache.

That's just sad.


[-] -3 points by SatanDemocrat (-24) 6 years ago

That fawking Ron Paul needs to lay off all the uncooperative do gooder crap. We'll replace him soon enough with somebody that can be bought and get along with the rest of us.

[-] -3 points by Newspeak1 (39) from Mt Shasta, CA 6 years ago

C'mon all you democrat party lovers! Where are you? Where is your party? I thought you said the republicans were the party of evil. The democrats the party of true compassion. WELL? C'mon you brainwashed liberal assholes! Lets hear the talking points you've been told to spew out!

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Hey - anyone think that the police could be sued for making selective arrests? I mean take the Bridge protest. They were randomly grabbing people. Should they not have arrested the whole crowd?

Violation of rights either way you look at it. They violated the rights of those they arrested for protesting or they violated the law by not following through with arresting the whole crowd.

Proper enforcement of the law?


Terror tactics used on the protesting public?

Inquiring minds want to know.