>(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;
>In this section—
(1) the term “restricted buildings or grounds” means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area—
>(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting;
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752
Trump has secret service protection. All of those protesters are breaking the law. How come no one is talking about this? Does Trump know?
>>67444144
The Trespass Bill was signed into law by Obama and is the definition of anti-free speech. It's funny that leftists are now abusing the law that leftists signed into existence. No doubt this irony is completely lost on them.
You don't hear about it in the news because it doesn't fit their narrative. Yet again we can see the hypocrisy of the left and the media.
...is trump protected by the SS? i thought secret service only shows up after the nomination...
>>67444144
Delete this
>>67444884
He's had it for a while
>>67444890
Cannot
>>67444144
DELETE THIS
>>67444969
can i get proof? no hate, you're probably right. i'd like to read about it...
>>67445071
>>67444890
y tho
>>67445071
>>67444890
hush up, shitlords
protest yourselves
That's the most bootlicking law I've ever heard by far. The people should have the right to protest any and all things and I'd vote for Trump.
>>67445084
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-carson-will-receive-secret-service-protection-dhs-confirms/2015/11/05/54529be0-83e5-11e5-9afb-0c971f713d0c_story.html
That's also who saved him from the rabid Marxist who tried to attack him in Ohio
>>67444144
Trump's a nice guy and he'd rather spare naive peons his wrath.
They might get a sample of it if they keep testing him though. They were warned.
>>67444144
Holy shit. Bumping.
>>67445084
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/05/politics/donald-trump-ben-carson-secret-service/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-carson-will-receive-secret-service-protection-dhs-confirms/2015/11/05/54529be0-83e5-11e5-9afb-0c971f713d0c_story.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/19/source-trump-carson-likely-to-get-secret-service-protection.html
>>67444144
Sounds great, but can a trump rally be subsumed under the definition of "a government function or official business"?
Just curious
>>67445502
I meant "government business and official functions" of course.
>>67445403
>>67445248
knowledge => power
thanks lads
>>67444144
Yeah, I saw stefan's latest video as well. We don't need a thread about it.
Sorry OP - the protesters are not "disrupting the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions."
Trump is not a government official, and has no official function.
I'm on the Trump Train, but the tree you're barking up has nothing in it.
>>67445705
Why not?
>>67444884
Secret Service protects all the candidates from both parties far enough into the election.
Trump's level is more or less what Obama's was at its prime already, let alone if he reaches the general election.
>>67445750
Are you a lawyer?
>>67445750
So Hillary and Bernie would be protected by the law, because they are government officials? Nonsense. He's a political candidate for presidency, that is governmental in every sense. Also, the stipulation that Secret Service be present
>>(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting;
clearly trumps any vague hand-wringing about the "governmental" nature of Trump's rallies
>>67445963
No, but I know how to read a law, I know what "government business" is, I know what "official functions are," and I know that Donald Trump is, for the time being, a private citizen. His rallies are not government business, they're Donald Trump business.
>>67444144
Because Trump is flying the America, and freedom of speech campaign. If he were to actually start suing people for protesting he would legit start looking like a dictator and the media would have a field day again.
>>67446257
Why is the secret service following around a guy who's minding his own business?
>>67445750
>presidential candidate
>not govt business
id think you would lose that argument in court.
>>67446121
Wrong again. Hillary is also a private citizen. Sanders is a senator, but that doesn't make his Presidential rallies official government business.
Look guys, I'm on the Trump Train with you. Just trying to save you some time. This one is a loser.
>>67446544
>official government business.
Those words don't go together. The wording of the law separates "Government business" (which a presidential candidate's rally clearly falls under) and "official functions", very distinct
>>67446857
Dude, a Presidential candidate's really simply isn't official government business. There are no government employees or elected officials involved. It's not paid for with taxpayer money. If the private-citizen candidate himself did not make it happen, would the government have a rally anyway? No. So it's not government business.
Secret Service protection is provided to candidates ONLY by their request. To request and receive Secret Service protection does not suddenly make one a government official, nor does it make your events official functions.
It's not rocket science TB H
>>67446257
>>67446544
>>67447208
This guy is right.
>>67447208
>The term "governmental function" is defined as “a function which is so intimately related to the public interest as to mandate performance by Government employees. These functions include those activities which require either the exercise of discretion in applying Government authority or the use of value judgments in making decisions for the Government.” [Martin v. Halliburton, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 18698 (5th Cir. Tex. Sept. 7, 2010)].
http://definitions.uslegal.com/g/governmental-function/
>>67447208
>official government business
There you go again. There is a distinction between "official functions" (business performed by the formal government) and "Government business" (business performed under the umbrella of Government). You're tying the two together arbitrarily.
>There are no government employees or elected officials involved.
The Secret Service is involved, and they are paid with taxpayer money to protect a government-identified asset.
>Secret Service protection does not suddenly make one a government official
No one is saying that, but under clause B the law clearly protects those who have a Secret Service detail. If the other candidates don't want Secret Service protection that's their mistake.
Also your suggestion that the rally isn't a governmental function just because it's not financed by taxpayer revenue or staffed by government employees is extremely flimsy. Government employees attend and speak at these events, and they are directly related to the accession of prospective presidential candidates. They are clearly government business. They may not be "official functions" of the elected government, but they are government business.
>>67447824
your compulsion to lick boots will be the end of you, anon-kun
>>67448397
you can thank Obama if you don't like the law, he's the one who signed it in the first place
>>67447824
Okay, brah. I'm not going round and round with you over this, obviously you've convinced yourself that you're onto something.
Well, we've been a country for about 240 years now. In all that time, in no political race, has anyone ever invoked that law to stop people from protesting at their rallies.
You'll be the first one. So good luck to you.
>>67448397
>the guy who explains the law to morons must also agree with it
pretty thin m8
>>67448502
you are a wet noodle bootlicker, and i don't give a shit about Obama
you're a try hard who can only succeed in being a disappointment to your parents and peers
>>67448660
It's okay to admit that you're wrong. It's a stupid fucking law in the first place. The reason it "hasn't been used" (which is wrong, it has been used) is because it's only existed since 1971, and was later modified by Obama to make it easier for the SS to arrest people.
The point however is that protesters are indeed breaking the law, and both the government and the media are being selective in how they apply said law, since it has been used to remove political opponents in the past. Apparently it doesn't apply when those protesters are now doing your bidding.
>>67448660
>Well, we've been a country for about 240 years now. In all that time, in no political race, has anyone ever invoked that law to stop people from protesting at their rallies.
This law was passed in 2012 you fucking mongoloid
>>67448928
let go of your hatred
>>67448991
>>67449012
>it's only existed since 1971
>This law was passed in 2012 you fucking mongoloid
>1971
>2012
Well, once you guys decide when the law was made, what it means, who is selectively deciding whether to enforce it or not, and how to go about making them enforce it on Trump's protesters, by all means make another thread and let me know.
>>67445227
Obama passed that law because he didn't like Tea Party people protesting at his fundraising events.
>>67449403
You can stay ignorant or you can do a simple google search. The choice is yours.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/how-big-deal-hr-347-criminalizing-protest-bill
>>67446857
considering he wrote the law to keep protesters away from his fundraising events, I don't think those qualify as official government business or official functions.
>>67449743
Well apparently they qualify only if Obama himself is doing the fundraising, no one else is allowed to benefit. How dictatorial
People saying that this law doesn't include Trump rallies is wrong. In the bill it defines restricted buildings as of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance, which both of these points would warrant that this bill includes Trump rallies because 1. He is being protected by the SS, and 2. Presidential candidate rallies are special events of national significance.
>>67449403
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/text
>>67449566
Whether you're right or wrong, I've managed to make it seem VERY questionable indeed whether it would apply to a Trump rally just from its wording.
And I'm not an attorney.
you can do whatever you want in the Free Speech Zone™
>>67449566
Thanks for saving me a search!
>>67450102
>being this retarded
>>67450102
> I've managed to make it seem VERY questionable
No, you haven't.
And with the additions of >>67449880
and >>67449946, which clarify that events of national significance fall under the purview of the law (obliterating the confusion about government business and official functions), and
>(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;
it's clear that Trump too is protected under this garbage law. With the addition of that fourth subclause one could even criminalize Trump's supporters for acts of violence committed against protesters, and those protesters could themselves be criminalized for attacking Trump and his supporters. The fourth subclause doesn't even specify that it must be a "governmental function", it simply is illegal to attack someone while you are in a restricted area.
>>67450477
>calls me retarded
>trying to push a law that no one's ever heard of, no one's ever used, and actually doesn't seem to apply
Now that you've found this "law," what are you going to do with it? E-mail it to Donald Trump and say "Hey, check this out?" You think he doesn't already know about this, if it applies?
And here's a little tip for you: NO POLITICIAN ACTUALLY WANTS TO KEEP PROTESTERS AWAY FROM THEIR RALLIES.
The protesters bring more media coverage, and frankly, if you're not getting protested in the USA Presidential race, you must not be saying anything worth hearing.
>>67444884
secret service is general and extensive. its basically a blanket term for political security
>>67450856
>no one's ever used
It's been used repeatedly to suppress dissenters of the current regime. Now it doesn't apply, for some reason.
>>67451082
>It's been used repeatedly to suppress dissenters of the current regime.
citation pl0x
>>67450856
>no one's ever heard of, no one's ever used
>"law,"
LOL
>>67444144
Tell trump this. Tell his internet people.
>>67451155
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-29/news/chi-protesters-targeting-obama-fundraiser-arrested-20130529_1_immigration-bill-president-obama-deportations
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/24/obama-heckled-lgbt-undocumented-immigrants_n_7657854.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/30/obama-heckled_n_4178882.html
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/8-Protesters-Arrested-at-Obama-Campaign-HQ-151381415.html
etc
>>67451824
You guys are really bad at mockery. But considering that your reading comprehension is so poor, I guess that's no surprise.
>>67444718
Its just like the slave return laws.
>make federal law
>northern states ignore with no judicial ruling because muh freedumbs
>>67452938
>y-youre dumb
LOL
>>67444144
This is why the news never reports on hillary protestors and why we never hear from them ever again.
>>67453399
oh boy, I hadn't even thought to look up hillary protests
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/18/ex_cia_analyst_ray_mcgovern_beaten
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/08/01/watch-how-police-treat-college-students-protesting-hillary-clinton/
>>67454628
http://usuncut.com/black-lives-matter/clinton-holds-campaign-speech-in-atlanta-to-discuss-race-throws-out-black-lives-matter-activists-video/
Apparently the police will remove BLM protesters from Hillary's rallies, but they won't extend the same courtesy to Trump
>>67444144
Part of the issue though is whether or not the government would charge people under this law and put them under trial for it. At least with the Ohio guy, they charged him with inducing panic and disorderly conduct, both misdemeanor state (not federal) charges.
https://www.rt.com/usa/trespass-bill-obama-secret-227/
SPREAD THIS. SAVE TRUMP. FIRE UP THOSE THREADS NOW ANONS. MAGA MAGA MAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>>67444144
>>67455185
The government thus far has been lax about actually charging people (as far as we know, as >>67453399 pointed out not everything gets published). The point however is that other candidates are being privileged; protesters are removed frequently by the police from Bernie and Hillary events with little fanfare from the media, while Trump not only gets blasted for kicking out protesters, but also has one of his rallies ruined because the police did not remove violent protesters. And then the media says he "deserves" to be protested, and that protesters have the right to shut him down completely, which is an insanely anti-liberty claim
>>67444144
let them drown in their tears
