General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: US Congress passes authoritarian anti-protest law [View all]onenote
(42,700 posts)we actually agree that this bill doesn't make a significant change in the law -- certainly not the type of change the agitators would have folks believe it makes. Rather, the stated purpose for the amendment was to cover the White House and the VP's residence which weren't covered until this amended version was enacted. In fact, here is what the House report accompanying HR 347 has to say on the subject:
"Current law prohibits unlawful entries upon any restricted building or ground where the President, Vice President or other protectee is temporarily visiting. However, there is no Federal law that expressly prohibits unlawful entry to the White House and its grounds or the Vice President's residence and its grounds.
The Secret Service must therefore rely upon a provision in the District of Columbia Code, which addresses only minor misdemeanor infractions, when someone attempts to or successfully trespasses upon the grounds of the White House or Vice President's residence or, worse, breaches the White House or Vice President's residence itself.
H.R. 347 remedies this problem by specifically including the White House, the Vice President's residence, and their respective grounds in the definition of restricted buildings and grounds for purposes of Section 1752."
By the way, there may well have been other laws that the Salahis could've been prosecuted under, such as a federal law against lying to the secret service and a law that prohibits entry into a federal building by false pretenses. But 1752 wouldn't have applied back then. Now arguably it does.