>Current federal law (H.R. 347) does not allow for protesting of any type in an area under protection by the Secret Service. When the federal law on trespass was quietly amended—it is a crime, punishable by up to a year in prison, to "knowingly impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions" in locations guarded by the Secret Service, including places where individuals under Secret Service protection are temporarily located—the revised statute made it "easier for the government to criminalize protest.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/text
And? Tough shit.
>>67207215
Get off my website.
>>67207751
chill out mate.
1st Amendment abrogating law created by Obama to shut-down all those imaginary evil White racist dissenters at his teleprompter readings.
Now will be used by Trump to shutdown actual racists and allow free speech.
It's like pottery.
>>67206348
All of the sudden the anti PC trumpfags ate looking for excuses to silence free speech. Not surprising. You authoritarian pos's
>>67206348
>Secret Service agent did not have arguable probable cause to arrest protestors at re-election rally for President of the United States under federal statute prohibiting persons from entering posted or cordoned off grounds where the President is temporarily visiting, so as to entitle agent to qualified immunity from Fourth Amendment suit, where protestors had fully complied with law enforcement orders to move away from protected perimeter, once the law enforcement officers notified them of the security restrictions in place. McCabe v. Macaulay, N.D.Iowa 2007, 515 F.Supp.2d 944
You can't press charges on protesters as long as they leave when requested. Sorry.
>>67208312
The bill was pushed by Republicans, actually.
>>67208431
THE LAW IS THE LAW
>>67208932
You're right. The law is the law. See >>67208435
The law states you're grasping at straws that don't exist. The only person who can get charges pressed against him is that idiot who jumped the fence and ran at trump.
>>67206348
What is it with Tumblr people and having such punchable faces?
>>67208545
so
obama signed it
>>67206348
are those "men" wearing makeup?
>>67209071
He didn't "create it" though. And Veto-ing it is probably a retarded move, when there's so many more things more worthwhile.
Besides, there was already caselaw that reigned the law in.
>>67208435
>>67209063
>>Current federal law (H.R. 347) does not allow for protesting of any type in an area under protection by the Secret Service.
>The only person who can get charges pressed against him is that idiot who jumped the fence
Protestors shouldn't be there to begin with, and if they are, they should be ejected. If they refuse, then they should be arrested.
Secret Service is guarding the whole event, not just a ten meter radius around Trump.
>>67210124
>Secret Service is guarding the whole event, not just a ten meter radius around Trump.
The area must be cordoned off, actually.
From the law, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1752:
>the term “restricted buildings or grounds” means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area
Also:
Evidence that law enforcement agents were stationed at perimeters of restricted area outside of airport hanger established that area was cordoned off within meaning of statute criminalizing willfully and knowingly entering and remaining in a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area where the President of the United States was temporarily visiting. U.S. v. Bursey, C.A.4 (S.C.) 2005, 416 F.3d 301
The test is whether the area was "cordoned off"
>>67207912
why is /pol/ full of retards who don't do anything except tell people that we can't do anything or to chill
I genuinely think that the reddit users that come here and shitpost about blm etc. are better because even although they are deluded morons they at least put some effort into what they believe in
>>67211532
I know it's bait, straya, but i
I's because if /pol/ did anything, it would be poorly planned out, on grounds that are entirely dubious, and end in disaster.
See: this entire thread.
Nobody actually reads anything here. They make decisions based on bad facts and then stick to them to the death.
>>67211319
>The test is whether the area was "cordoned off"
Easy: cordon off the entire event, allow everyone in who passes security (like at an airport), and then eject anyone who protests inside the event.
>>67212440
Security measures like that do not make an area restricted. See McCabe. You'd need a system of identification (ID tags) Ticketing and the like. And it must be intentional ticketing.
As it is, Trump's even teeter on the definition of public and private. See Borden v. City of Modesto.
You'd end up with crowds like Rubio and Cruz if that happened.
I'm doing actual legal research for your ass now.
>>67211726
>Nobody actually reads anything here.
No, you're just not being very creative with your interpretations of what you read.
>>67213283
The law doesn't work like that, cunt. Unless you're talking about tax law, and even then, you're at the mercy of precedent.
This is criminal law. It is very specific and inflexible. For good reason.
>>67213192
>You'd need a system of identification (ID tags) Ticketing and the like.
>And it must be intentional ticketing.
This is all pretty straightforward and easy to implement.
>You'd end up with crowds like Rubio and Cruz if that happened.
Crowd size is somewhat unimportant. Hillary is dominating and she draws small crowds. Trump's already got all the visibility he needs.
>I'm doing actual legal research for your ass now.
Well, then you're fired.
>>67208932
>take issue with the government and the law when it is corrupt and silences the common man
>love the law when it can be taken advantage of to favor Trump
>>67213800
>The law doesn't work like that, cunt.
>This is criminal law. It is very specific and inflexible.
Wrong again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation
>>67214279
Did you even read your own article you linked me?
>In construing an ambiguous criminal statute, the court should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the defendant.[9] See McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987); See, e.g., Muscarello v. U.S., 524 U.S. 125 (1998) (declining to apply the rule of lenity); Evans v. U.S., 504 U.S. 255 (1992) (Thomas, J., dissenting); Scarborough v. U.S., 431 U.S. 563 (1977) (Stewart, J., dissenting); See United States v. Santos (2008).
Here's some more, from U.S. v. Yates
>Finally, if our recourse to traditional tools of statutory construction leaves any doubt about the meaning of “tangible object,” as that term is used in §1519, we would invoke the rule that “ambiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity.”
If there is any ambiguity in criminal law, it is always given to the benefit of the accused.
>>67206348
That's why you protest the perimeter, or push your way in before the secret service arrives. It worked din Chicago last Thursday.
TFW Trumpshills are actually using PC laws passed by Obama as a defense.
>>67215406
Technically, the original law was put in by the legislature under Bush, in 2006. It was amended in 07 I believe, and then in 2012. Another amendment is in the house right now, sitting in committee.
trump shills are statists, same as obama shills and hillary shills.
Mussolini would be proud
>>67214830
>Courts rule in favor of the defendant when there's ambiguity.
What ambiguity is there when attendees would knowingly be entering a restricted area? They could be warned ahead of time that they can't start protesting and disrupt the event or they'll be ejected and charged.
It's kind of mean and unprecedented, but people are obviously trying to kill him and large segments of the population want him dead.
>>67215932
are we talking about trump or obama?
>>67215627
Hopefully they amend it to be more in line with the intent of the first amendment
>>67209299
He signed it
>>67215906
Not an argument.
>>67215932
What is a restricted area in both size and definition? What constitutes knowledge of a restricted area?
These are looked over and have precedent in the cases I've been giving you. In 18 U.S.C. S1752, there isn't much ambiguity, and there's court law that covers much of it. But you're implying that court law is just "not being looked at creatively enough to finagle around it", and the other person implied that criminal law works on general rules of statutory interpretation.
>>67206348
So the government is impeding on your rights more and you have no problem with it?
Way to go freedom fighters.
>>67216026
Doesn't matter. Obama. Trump. Ex Presidents.
Anyone who is being protected by Secret Services should be able to implement it.
>>67206348
they never filed the paper work. a needed step in legal protesting to assure
1) that it wont go on forever since they can refuse extensions at any time
2)that the reason for protesting pertains to the organization or company or what ever. you cant go to mcdonalds and protest abortion its illegal
3) that a proper location for the protest can be determined so you are not in the streets since it is illegal to impeded any company or organization from conducting business or in general block traffic
>>67216330
>What is a restricted area in both size and definition?
A large building like an arena.
>What constitutes knowledge of a restricted area?
Passing security and being informed in the process.
>>67216806
The thing is you don't get to decide that.
The courts have already decided that.
See McCabe and Bursey
