Clay Mosby Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 This is for information only please. But Damn Frightening! felony free speech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forty Rod SASS 3935 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Frightening? Hell yes it is!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Smokepole #29248L Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 BOHICA... This will be overturned by the SCOTUS.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Rick Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 And here is a link to the results of the House vote: 388 yea, 3 nay, and 42 not voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker, SASS #55963 Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 I wonder if congress knew what they were voting on. I mean all the details. Then the next question is when will this make it to SCOTUS to be thrown out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jake1001 Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 ZIP your Lip. Say things that they don't like could send you to Jail. Who are these guys? Why do people not see this on the nightly news? Big Jake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spooky Joe, SASS #24061 Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 When I first heard about this bill a while ago, I was waiting for the firestorm of outrage. It never came. This bill gives the Secret Service the auithority to ban protests in the vicinity of any protectee or face felony charges. Looks like Obama now has his SA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Cherokee, SASS#48332 Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Who introduced this bill in the first place? Could this have been passed in anticipation of things to come that ain't gonna be popular with the majority of the American people? I also wonder why the news media wasn't all over this..After all, this is the sort of thing that could eventually be extended to supression of freedom of the press..But this is the first I've heard about any of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneaky Gun Runner SASS 79775 Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 I looked at the voting and I saw a man I know personally had cast a Yea vote in support of this measure. I am certain that this result was not the intent. 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. The law that I copied and pasted above talks about "anyone who knowingly enters any restricted building or grounds". There is verbage about SS protection and temporary visitation. I do not see the lawful protest felony there and I doulbt that many of those voting did either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Rooster Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Reconsidered - removed by me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 ... GG ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugscuffle Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 I looked at the voting and I saw a man I know personally had cast a Yea vote in support of this measure. I am certain that this result was not the intent. 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. The law that I copied and pasted above talks about "anyone who knowingly enters any restricted building or grounds". There is verbage about SS protection and temporary visitation. I do not see the lawful protest felony there and I doulbt that many of those voting did either. Thank you for doing the reaearch on this for us. It is refreshing to see that someone actually checks to verify the truth of a published or broadcast statement. I am greatly relieved to see that upon checikng the FACTS our government is NOT quashing our freedom of speech and that the drivel put outby Fox News is all a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Thank you for doing the reaearch on this for us. It is refreshing to see that someone actually checks to verify the truth of a published or broadcast statement. I am greatly relieved to see that upon checikng the FACTS our government is NOT quashing our freedom of speech and that the drivel put outby Fox News is all a lie. typical liberal mantra .... what lie? http://www.gpo.gov/f...112hr347enr.pdf leaves much to be interpreted...don't it ... GG ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker, SASS #55963 Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Once again I think we were all suckered in with the title of this thread. When I read the actual bill, it does not appear to have an actual freedom of speech issue. Rather it has to do with disorderly conduct while near a protected moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay Mosby Posted April 20, 2012 Author Share Posted April 20, 2012 What concerned me was the way the judge explained it, the SS has broad powers of interpretation as to what could be considered "Disruptive" behaviour. Anyway, as noted in the title, it was for information only Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugscuffle Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Who introduced this bill in the first place? Could this have been passed in anticipation of things to come that ain't gonna be popular with the majority of the American people? I also wonder why the news media wasn't all over this..After all, this is the sort of thing that could eventually be extended to supression of freedom of the press..But this is the first I've heard about any of it. The bill was introduced and sponsored by Republicans. It was written by a Republican, HR 347 Sponsor Tom Rooney R-16 FL. It passed the house with only 3 dissenting votes. The news media is not "all over this" because it is NOT what you are interpreting and depicting it as. It is a very simple "NO TRESPASS" law. Once again I think we were all suckered in with the title of this thread. When I read the actual bill, it does not appear to have an actual freedom of speech issue. Rather it has to do with disorderly conduct while near a protected moron. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf Quite right you re sir! Just read the law, then who are you going to believe, Fox News or your lieing eyes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T. H. O' Sullivan Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Our Founding Fathers would already be shooting by now....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Mr. Scuffle ...your good for a laugh with your relentlessness GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 What concerned me was the way the judge explained it, the SS has broad powers of interpretation as to what could be considered "Disruptive" behaviour. Anyway, as noted in the title, it was for information only What about when the SS engages in disruptive behavior? Do they arrest themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tennessee Stud, SASS# 43634 Life Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 4-21-2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.