Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
24. This has been on the books since 1971! Here, look, all they did is cleaned it up:
Mon Mar 5, 2012, 02:38 AM
Mar 2012

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

18 USC § 1752 - Restricted building or grounds

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons—
(1) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting;
(2) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;
(3) willfully, knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any building or grounds described in paragraph (1) or (2) when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;
(4) willfully and knowingly to obstruct or impede ingress or egress to or from any building, grounds, or area described in paragraph (1) or (2); or
(5) willfully and knowingly to engage in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any building, grounds, or area described in paragraph (1) or (2).
(b) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be punishable by—
(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
(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.
(c) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be prosecuted by the United States attorney in the Federal district court having jurisdiction of the place where the offense occurred.
(d) None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section.
(e) As used in this section, 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 when such person has not declined such protection.



`Sec. 1752. Restricted building or grounds

`(a) Whoever--
`(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;
`(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;
`(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or
`(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
`(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is--
`(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
`(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.
`(c) In this section--
`(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.'.
so Bernie Sanders, Kucinich, Kaptur, and Al Franken all supported this crap. provis99 Mar 2012 #1
Maybe it's because the hype you read here about it is misleading geek tragedy Mar 2012 #8
It is more than the oval office. It is more than 'occupying'. morningfog Mar 2012 #38
I'm sure Alex Jones is all over this... snooper2 Mar 2012 #47
The article is still bullshit jeff47 Mar 2012 #72
Someone should call in to the Thom Hartmann show on Friday of next JDPriestly Mar 2012 #18
Seconded malthaussen Mar 2012 #51
Only if they want to look foolish jeff47 Mar 2012 #73
Well three of my most respected Congressmen did this. white_wolf Mar 2012 #20
Right. TheWraith Mar 2012 #34
Except the NDAA *does* authorize indefinite detention MannyGoldstein Mar 2012 #40
BINGO. FedUp_Queer Mar 2012 #50
They keep referring to 1021 instead of 1022 MannyGoldstein Mar 2012 #71
Yes.... With the tweaking of this law, President Obama will leave it up to the military to decide if midnight Mar 2012 #58
I think you mean that Obama may leave it up to the military. There is nothing binding rhett o rick Mar 2012 #76
Yeah right. It was soooo clear that we had a raging national debate over it. Clear as a bell. nm rhett o rick Mar 2012 #77
TY for getting my attention Manny. The thread title is fitting. /nt think Mar 2012 #2
I was gonna have to kick your ass Viva_La_Revolution Mar 2012 #3
Thanks for calling attention to this, Manny. nt gateley Mar 2012 #4
read this shit, this morning. like you - i'm not sure of the motives. But .... marasinghe Mar 2012 #5
At a conference tonight, Oprah's Steadman, the keynote speaker, mocked OWS. aikoaiko Mar 2012 #6
What was the conference? Leopolds Ghost Mar 2012 #29
National Youth At-Risk conference aikoaiko Mar 2012 #41
Well, what is so shocking about one of the truedelphi Mar 2012 #56
I was surprised that someone of his stature would publicly say that. aikoaiko Mar 2012 #69
Re Stedman Graham LoisB Mar 2012 #57
No. I was an attendee. aikoaiko Mar 2012 #66
they didn't have the thinking skills to be successful.? dixiegrrrrl Mar 2012 #60
yep I found it ignorantly insulting and rude. aikoaiko Mar 2012 #67
Article is complete horseshit and dishonest. geek tragedy Mar 2012 #7
Have you read the legislation? It makes it a federal crime to disrupt a Natl Special Security Event Leopolds Ghost Mar 2012 #30
No, it doesn't. jeff47 Mar 2012 #65
but people WERE arrested at the G8 and G20 summits. provis99 Mar 2012 #92
No, you can't. jeff47 Mar 2012 #93
you obviously have not read the changes in the law. provis99 Mar 2012 #94
Sweet! I'm being ignored by someone who won't read! jeff47 Mar 2012 #95
I give up. What are you talking about? nt Honeycombe8 Mar 2012 #9
Congress passed a bill making it illegal to trespass in an area geek tragedy Mar 2012 #10
Thanks. nt Honeycombe8 Mar 2012 #16
They didn't "pass it" they amended it to make it clearer. joshcryer Mar 2012 #23
What's your opinion on disruption at, e.g. the G8 conference? n/t Leopolds Ghost Mar 2012 #31
Seattle 99. joshcryer Mar 2012 #33
I was on the East Coast. Leopolds Ghost Mar 2012 #87
"Some Ron Paul types" -- by that I assume you are attempting to refer to Occupy supporters Leopolds Ghost Mar 2012 #28
"Some Ron Paul types" bvar22 Mar 2012 #43
Yep, dammit to hell with that Ron Paul - truedelphi Mar 2012 #78
Including any special event "of national significance". Which does not require SS involvemnet. morningfog Mar 2012 #39
Read. The. Damn. Law. jeff47 Mar 2012 #62
I read the damn law. You misread it. No requirement of SS. morningfog Mar 2012 #79
How, exactly, did you manage to bold the paragraph right above the one that requires Secret Service? jeff47 Mar 2012 #83
It was easy. I highlighted it and click the b button. morningfog Mar 2012 #84
Have you heard of this thing called "google"? jeff47 Mar 2012 #85
"Congress shall make NO law...abridging..the right of the people peaceably to assemble..." Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2012 #11
And the courts, so busy dismantling all gun regulation Warren Stupidity Mar 2012 #37
This is ProSense Mar 2012 #12
How did we manage to avoid disaster MannyGoldstein Mar 2012 #14
It helped ProSense Mar 2012 #15
That bill is at the very best unnecessary and a waste of time. JDPriestly Mar 2012 #19
DADT repeal? geek tragedy Mar 2012 #21
Ummm... progressoid Mar 2012 #25
Sure there were, called robber barons, and they used public and private armies against Americans. saras Mar 2012 #52
This has been on the books since 1971! Here, look, all they did is cleaned it up: joshcryer Mar 2012 #24
It passed in 1971. jeff47 Mar 2012 #68
Such a clueless post. NashvilleLefty Mar 2012 #13
The point of the Democratic party is to try and win elections. Fumesucker Mar 2012 #26
Long live Occupy. donheld Mar 2012 #17
Embarrassing. joshcryer Mar 2012 #22
I've noticed that unionworks Mar 2012 #27
I can't help but note that this thread has more recs than the one you wanted them to rec Leopolds Ghost Mar 2012 #32
Unless OWS was secretly planning to assault the President or Vice President WonderGrunion Mar 2012 #35
We'll see if fascism is upheld in the courts. mmonk Mar 2012 #36
Fuck wsws.org...nt SidDithers Mar 2012 #42
This ProSense Mar 2012 #44
Well, progressoid Mar 2012 #48
What's ProSense Mar 2012 #49
BTW... are you still claiming MannyGoldstein Mar 2012 #54
Since ProSense Mar 2012 #59
So now your claim is that the NDAA allows indefinite imprisonment at the Presisdent's whim, MannyGoldstein Mar 2012 #70
You ProSense Mar 2012 #74
It takes a big person to admit they were wrong MannyGoldstein Mar 2012 #75
K&R hwmnbn Mar 2012 #45
you had me going. barbtries Mar 2012 #46
In-fucking-credible! Plucketeer Mar 2012 #53
HR 347 is every bit as nefarious as it sounds. truedelphi Mar 2012 #55
The part you are complaining about passed in 1971 jeff47 Mar 2012 #61
For sensible woodchucks whatchamacallit Mar 2012 #63
Why are we celebrating lying? jeff47 Mar 2012 #64
1971-Bad, anti-assembly law passed. 1982-bad made worse. 2012-=worst made more ambiguous by TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #80
It's lying to claim this is new. jeff47 Mar 2012 #82
You didnt fool me Manny. OWS spring is right around the corner. nm rhett o rick Mar 2012 #81
I was gonna slap you really hard lunatica Mar 2012 #86
Kick woo me with science Mar 2012 #88
Post couldn't have been too good... SidDithers Mar 2012 #89
Thank you Manny... midnight Mar 2012 #90
Kick woo me with science Mar 2012 #91
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Fuck Occupy already. Fuck...»Reply #24