[Beavis1971]

I am not sure if this is the right section, but an outright attack on our First Amendment clearly paves the way for the rest to fall. No free speech!!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=7SGWH3kirzg&vq=medium"]http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=7SGWH3kirzg&vq=medium[/ame]

 

[DavidinMD]

OMG! When the hell did that happen. Who knew!? We couldn't voice disapproval to our elected officials in Congress because we didn't know it was happening. Passed overwhelming in both houses. Really! OMG! GI9

 

[Dredsen]

Guys don't believe what you hear on the news. read the bill all the bill does is make a crime to protest at government buildings that are marked against trespassing (i.e. going into the building and disrupting function of the government. WITH a deadly weapon.)

this bill was signed into law because of the people brining ar-15's and other deadly weapons to government buildings and places where secret service was trying to protect the president.

You can still protest, you just cannot cross the cordoned off area where the president is WITH a deadly weapon or its a felony.



...more fear mongering tactics.

again remember to read the law instead of wetting your pants based on Fox news reports. You can still protest, just don't bring ar-15s to obama rallies.

theres way more videos but here is a cell phone video of the guy doing it, (this is made possible by open carry laws)

if you live in a state where theres no open carry, this bill doesn't even effect you.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcJmtZWb3hs[/ame]

 

[LausDeo]

What Dredsen said. If it ever truly becomes time to threaten the overthrow of our government as Jefferson wanted us to have the ability to, this law is not going to get in the way.

In the meantime, lets not have any loonies shooting up the elected officials... even if we don't like them very much.

 

[Dredsen]

and as per the law I believe that man could still do exactly what he does in the video.. but the moment he crosses a cordoned or marked area he has committed the felony.

 

[oldflyboy]

OMG! When the hell did that happen. Who knew!? We couldn't voice disapproval to our elected officials in Congress because we didn't know it was happening. Passed overwhelming in both houses. Really! OMG! GI9

Just confirms my suspicions that they really don't care what we think unless we are agreeing with them and sending them money.

 

[Dredsen]

-1 for reading the first post then commenting right away. i have long since given up on trying to convince pessimists that its not a hopeless world.

they will always only read,hear and see what they want.

 

[Beavis1971]

I don't follow Fox as gospel, but read the abbreviated version that is currently available. Specifically Section 2. The full version is not available at this time.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf

H. R. 347—2
‘‘(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any
posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area—
‘‘(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice
President’s official residence or its grounds;
‘‘(B) of a building or grounds where the President or
other person protected by the Secret Service is or will
be temporarily visiting; or
‘‘(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction
with an event designated as a special event of national
significance; and
‘‘(2) 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.’’.
Speaker

 

[Dredsen]

(2) is talking about past presidents. or people the president deems as needing protection.

the will put up signs, rope barriers like they always have.. the only difference is its a felony to cross with a deadly weapon.

not sure why anyone would object to this.
i have read the full law when it was passed by the senate.

im not entirely against the fear mongering either i really want that guy to have a 1term presidency.

 

[Boom Stick]

(2) is talking about past presidents. or people the president deems as needing protection.

the will put up signs, rope barriers like they always have.. the only difference is its a felony to cross with a deadly weapon.

not sure why anyone would object to this.
i have read the full law when it was passed by the senate.

im not entirely against the fear mongering either i really want that guy to have a 1term presidency.

I read this law and I believe it gives power to the government to declare any place they deem "protected area" to be off limits to people....let's say your "democratically" elected president is at the Hilton in NYC. The Hilton now becomes a place you cannot be near. Also, those people deemed necessary to protect via secret service are not just limited to former presidents as it (the bill) does not allude to who is deemed necessary to protect...it could be anyone the executive branch says it is.

I don't think ar15 rifles are appropriate anywhere the pres is but this bill is designed to keep you and me (honest Americans) from having a venue to redress the government. No fear mongering involved here. The bill seems to be written in the terms of being open to interpretation by those enforcing it. Obviously security of a president is paramount but I think the gov't does the fear mongering around here. thanks

 

[Dredsen]

I read this law and I believe it gives power to the government to declare any place they deem "protected area" to be off limits to people....let's say your "democratically" elected president is at the Hilton in NYC. The Hilton now becomes a place you cannot be near. Also, those people deemed necessary to protect via secret service are not just limited to former presidents as it (the bill) does not allude to who is deemed necessary to protect...it could be anyone the executive branch says it is.

I don't think ar15 rifles are appropriate anywhere the pres is but this bill is designed to keep you and me (honest Americans) from having a venue to redress the government. No fear mongering involved here. The bill seems to be written in the terms of being open to interpretation by those enforcing it. Obviously security of a president is paramount but I think the gov't does the fear mongering around here. thanks

boomstick you should read the law again, it only pertains to those with deadly weapons. and they already throw your A** out , now they can just charge you for being a PITA.
Its all the Ron Paul civil miscreants DIRECT fault. unless you plan to perform hijinks like the much lauded 4409 ron paul supporters (whom i find quite entertaining and sometimes brave americans) then you have nothing to worry about. watch the civiil disobedience videos by 4409.

have you ever been around the president before? they check all your info, they also keep that info for later. Hell once on a flight to DC we sat next to some nice secret service agents. man they told stories , were very personable... they also made us fill out a contact form when the plane was about to land.

 

[pilotc7a]

That's scary

 

[Dredsen]

its actually all BS.. they purposefully leave out the fact that its only a crime IF YOU HAVE A DEADLY WEAPON..

come on sheep-people

 

[Beavis1971]

its actually all BS.. they purposefully leave out the fact that its only a crime IF YOU HAVE A DEADLY WEAPON..

come on sheep-people

Where are you coming up with this? I posted exactly what is available to public. The actual bill in its entirety is not available to the public yet. No where, in what has currently been published does it mention deadly weapon, or ARs as you previously posted.

 

[Dredsen]

I have read it, not sure why its not available now...

i read it right after the senate posted it.. its probably cached on google.

I even already had this debate in the politics forum (where this post will be moved to eventually)

 

[Philz M1A]

Fox news is only slightly better than the rest of the MSM. Take it for what it's worth...

 

[Dredsen]

popped up FIRST THING on google, cmon guys.

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

 

[Dredsen]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/text

 

[Dredsen]

next time they say "the full text is not available" google "hr xxxx full text" and it will come up from when the senate passed the bill.

 

[Dredsen]

This bill is meant to protect people and can't be used to to stop protests (even if they do they will have an "american spring" on their hands.. and americans are much better armed that arabs.

you can protest all you want, but violent people who cross the cordoned off area outside the even (they do this already always have) will be charged with a FEDERAL crime , as opposed to a STATE crime of ag assault.
this bill effectively lets the fed government try those who injure federally protected employees.