"Congress Shall Make THIS Law Abridging Free Speech ..."

• O-Trap

  

  This is ludicrous. Is free speech a national security threat now?
  
  [video=youtube;KtTXcwbpno4][/video]
  
  I suppose, then, that you could be charged with a felony for being around the Asian prostitutes.
• believer

  

  "This is a slow, creeping destruction of some of our basic liberties. And the president signed it in secret." - Andrew Napolitano
  
  Our Constitutional rights are eroding before our very eyes. Scary stuff here.
  
  I have no issues with providing security for our elected officials, but how is free speech a threat to the POTUS?
  
  The fact that both parties supported this blows me away.
• isadore

  It’s import to note-contrary to some reports-that H.R. 347 doesn’t create any new crimes, or directly apply to the Occupy movement. The bill slightly rewrites a short trespass law, originally passed in 1971 and amended a couple times since, that covers areas subject to heightened Secret Service security measures.
  The primary differences between the previous existing law and the updated version enacted by HR 347 are:
  -The old law made it a federal crime to “willfully and knowingly enter a restricted building, or grounds, now the law only specifies that one must “knowingly enter such a space to be a violation of the law
  -The updated version specifically defines the phrase “restricted building or its grounds” to include “the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence and its grounds.”
  http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/restricted.asp
  Gosh a ruddies, not that their has been any real serious threat of someone getting close enough to shot our Presidents or Presidential candidates since 1971. Oh I forgot Sarah Jane Moore, Squeaky Fromme, John Hinckley, Arthur Bremer.
  
• O-Trap

  

  believer;1191493 wrote:The fact that both parties supported this blows me away.

  Unfortunately, it doesn't surprise me at all.
• isadore

  gosh a ruddies they both support the idea of having a live President.
• sleeper

  

  What a terrible law, pure garbage. If Obama wasn't such a giant clown, there wouldn't be protest. He deserves all the hates that he gets, the guy is a joke.
• O-Trap

  

  isadore;1191563 wrote:It’s import to note-contrary to some reports-that H.R. 347 doesn’t create any new crimes, or directly apply to the Occupy movement. The bill slightly rewrites a short trespass law, originally passed in 1971 and amended a couple times since, that covers areas subject to heightened Secret Service security measures.
  The primary differences between the previous existing law and the updated version enacted by HR 347 are:
  -The old law made it a federal crime to “willfully and knowingly enter a restricted building, or grounds, now the law only specifies that one must “knowingly enter such a space to be a violation of the law
  -The updated version specifically defines the phrase “restricted building or its grounds” to include “the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence and its grounds.”
  http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/restricted.asp
  Gosh a ruddies, not that their has been any real serious threat of someone getting close enough to shot our Presidents or Presidential candidates since 1971. Oh I forgot Sarah Jane Moore, Squeaky Fromme, John Hinckley, Arthur Bremer.
  

  Reading the Snopes article you posted here, it does appear that it will allow for a person to be arrested and given up to a year (if unarmed, or up to 10 years if CCW or open carry) in prison without even having to know that being there is an actual crime. It doesn't revamp the law, no. It does, however, expand the spectrum of what is deemed illegal to include crimes not knowingly committed.
  
  Upon reading the bill itself (it's very short), very little of it seems to have to do with further protecting the president.
  
  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf
  
  Any good patriot wants a safe, living president, but not to the degree that it peels back the rights of the citizenry. The president, important as he is, has no more right to life than any other citizen, security detail or not
• Belly35

  

  So when I'm at a Tea Party with my weapon... I can be charge with a felon ...
  
  From my cold dead hands will this happen.... :mad:
• O-Trap

  

  Belly35;1192131 wrote:So when I'm at a Tea Party with my weapon... I can be charge with a felon ...

  Up to 10 years in the clink for that, so long as someone with a SS detail is present within what THEY determine is the area, and you know that they are present.
• isadore

  O-Trap;1192095 wrote:Reading the Snopes article you posted here, it does appear that it will allow for a person to be arrested and given up to a year (if unarmed, or up to 10 years if CCW or open carry) in prison without even having to know that being there is an actual crime. It doesn't revamp the law, no. It does, however, expand the spectrum of what is deemed illegal to include crimes not knowingly committed.
  
  Upon reading the bill itself (it's very short), very little of it seems to have to do with further protecting the president.
  
  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf
  
  Any good patriot wants a safe, living president, but not to the degree that it peels back the rights of the citizenry. The president, important as he is, has no more right to life than any other citizen, security detail or not

  Gosh a ruddies are you kidding, what I state is exactly the point. The law is a slight change in wording from the 1971 Act. Even though you easily dismiss the President’s protection it is of paramount importance if the electoral system is to have validity. Laws and the Supreme Court reinforce that. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/us/secret-service-agents-cant-be-sued-justices-rule.html
  Nearly 10% of our President’s have been killed in office. That is a far higher rate of combat mortality than our military in any of our wars. Then you include Reagan who was shot and nearly killed. Assassination attempts on Truman and two on Ford., plus one on FDR after he was elected but before he was inaugurated. We definitely should bend some rights to protect our leaders.