Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Legal and Activism (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/)
-   -   HR 347 aimed at pro-gun supporters? (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/hr-347-aimed-pro-gun-supporters-85138/)

JoshH 02-25-2013 04:37 PM

HR 347 aimed at pro-gun supporters?
 
So yet another anti-constitution bill was passed almost unanimously (388-3) in congress & signed into law by King Obama on Thursday without much press. This basically says you can no longer protest or assemble in defiance in any place the secret service is present or plans to be present in the near future! Why wasn't this passed when we had all the occupy people or the G8 people protesting? Only now that gun rights are being fought for are they are they trying to strip our right to protest this baloons policies ?

JoshH 02-25-2013 04:38 PM

*Bafoon* damn auto correct:-/

JoshH 02-25-2013 04:40 PM

PS Ron Paul was one of the 3 who refused to vote for this. I wonder how long it will take for the Supreme Court to throw this one out?

CA357 02-25-2013 05:03 PM

The crux of this is "willfully & knowingly". They're removing "willfully" and that's the big deal. Willfully means the gov. must prove intent. With that removed, they don't have to do that anymore. It gets their ducks in a row for mass arrests at any protest or civil demonstration. They'll silence opposition at any cost and continue to destroy the Constitution and B.O.R. with impunity.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/how-big-deal-hr-347-criminalizing-protest-bill

opaww 02-25-2013 06:11 PM

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.00347:

If this is the bill you are talking about it was signed into law on 3/8/2012, we already got a thread on it someplace

CA357 02-25-2013 06:18 PM

That's the one. For some reason, it's popping up on the web now.

Bigcountry02 02-25-2013 06:54 PM

Some stand outs in that thing!

Quote:

The original statute, unchanged by H.R. 347,made certain conduct with respect to these restricted areas a crime, including simple trespass, actions in or near the restricted area that would "disrupt the orderly conduct of Government," and blocking the entrance or exit to the restricted area.

H.R. 347 did make one noteworthy change, which may make it easier for the Secret Service to overuse or misuse the statute to arrest lawful protesters.

Any time the government lowers the intent requirement, it makes it easier for a prosecutor to prove her case, and it gives law enforcement more discretion when enforcing the law. To be sure, this is of concern to the ACLU. We will monitor the implementation of H.R. 347 for any abuse or misuse.

Also, while H.R. 347, on its own, is only of incremental importance, it could be misused as part of a larger move by the Secret Service and others to suppress lawful protest by relegating it to particular locations at a public event. These "free speech zones" are frequently used to target certain viewpoints or to keep protesters away from the cameras. Although H.R. 347 doesn't directly address free speech zones, it is part of the set of laws that make this conduct possible, and should be seen in this context.

Rest assured we'll be keeping an eye on how this law will be interpreted and used by law enforcement especially in light of the coming elections.

BigByrd47119 02-25-2013 06:54 PM

I thought this came up in 11'? Is it a reoccuring deal or what? Its horse spit for sure either way.

opaww 02-25-2013 06:57 PM

It came up in 2011 but was not signed into law until 3/8/2012

BigByrd47119 02-25-2013 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by opaww (Post 1153718)
It came up in 2011 but was not signed into law until 3/8/2012

Thought so. It gets a (dis)honorable mention in my thread titled "Scorecard: How Many Rights have Americans Lost" over in the politics section.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:21 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.