H.R.347 - Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011

To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code. view all titles (7)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code. as introduced.
  • Short: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 as introduced.
  • Short: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 as reported to house.
  • Short: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 as passed house.
  • Short: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 as reported to senate.
  • Short: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 as passed senate.
  • Short: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 as enacted.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

spoyzer 02/28/2011 10:29pm

This bill is extremely disappointing in regard to the reality that citizens of the United States would be forbidden access to building “We the People” own. The federal government or any level of government is not separate from the citizens of the nation, it is in fact an extension of the people.

kevinmcc 02/28/2012 8:59pm

Might as well be called: “Repealing the 1st Amendment in Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Act of 2011”

Chrismlynch 02/29/2012 11:43am

It’s sad how much our political parties hate the Constitution.

johnnelson 02/29/2012 5:29pm

How does this bill affect the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?

Chrysanthemum 03/05/2012 12:59pm
in reply to qantravon Mar 02, 2012 12:52am

I don’t see the caveat you seem to believe is there, that “you can’t be charged if you didn’t know there was a VIP in the area.” That limitation is not included in this Bill. It simply says that grounds and property extend to both the physical structures as well as persons protected by the Secret Service. It never says people won’t be charged if they didn’t know such a person was in the area. One would hope for such a reasonable conclusion, but it is not implicit.

wrww 03/06/2012 8:07am

This makes glitter bombing Rick Santorum punishable by 10 years in prison. Not that glitter bombing politicians is a super good thing to do, but this is ridiculous. I can’t seem to find the Senate roll call on this.

raichu 03/07/2012 12:32am

I also think this is an overreaction. People trying to stir up something to panic about. All this does is say you can’t protest on White House grounds, which is logical, or threaten to interfere with official government conduct in certain events. It’s for the safety of the officials and the building. You can still protest around the structure, just not on its limited grounds.

Incessant 03/09/2012 8:01pm
in reply to raichu Mar 07, 2012 12:32am

That is not “all it says”. It says you can be punished by a fine and a year in prison for knowingly entering a “restricted area”. That means if the Secret Service thinks some protesters are too close to a Romney speech, those protesters could be charged with a federal crime. Furthermore, the term “knowingly”, as opposed to other mens rea requirements, is easier to be charged with than the more severe “willfully”, which this bill used to provide.

Think about that. What kind of government is so afraid of protesters that they threaten them with prison time for being too close to the Secret Service? Why would this change need to happen? Have protesters threatened anyone’s life recently?

walker7 03/12/2012 4:01am

Here is a petition I want you to sign to try to reverse this act:

http://www.change.org/petitions/president-barack-obama-overturn-the-bill-hr347-that-will-make-protesting-a-federal-crime

Andromachos 03/14/2012 4:29pm

If you want to prevent harm to a government official or interfere in government business, why don’t you make a law that says “Thou shalt not harm a government official or interfere in government business?” instead of making it illegal to knowingly be near a government official or a place where government business is taking place.

aaronh 02/28/2012 11:36pm

Unless there is something I missed, we missed the boat on this one a long time ago. This is an amendment to USC Title 18 1752:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752

I don’t know if I’m interpreting it correctly, but it looks like it’s been on the books since 1971, largely in the same form (this amendment does indeed “simplify” it).

pmpowell001 02/29/2012 4:25pm

Well it makes sense they would want more protection with all the horrendous bills they continue to pass.

qantravon 03/02/2012 12:52am
in reply to johnnelson Feb 29, 2012 5:29pm

I agree, this is being taken FAR out of proportion. This bill just specifically states that a person must “knowingly, and with intent,” either disrupt official government business, keep people from entering or leaving the building, cause physical harm, or enter a building that’s been cordoned off. Nowhere does it say anything that would preclude peaceable, orderly protest or petitioning, and you can’t be charged if you didn’t know there was a VIP in the area.


Vote on This Bill

4% Users Support Bill

8 in favor / 192 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments