• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

HR 347 act

FerretMI

Regular Member
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
69
Location
Holland
The news on this is being pretty sensationalized. Read the following quote from the r/politics discussion of this:

This is ignorant nonsense. Federal law already covers nearly everything in this bill: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752
The current federal law applies everywhere except DC, where local law applies. This bill just adds specific mentions of the White House and the VP's Residence to the already existing bill. People seem to be reading the language that's already enacted into federal law and freaking out, thinking it's some new fascism.
For example, the linked article freaking out about:

"Even more sinister is the provision regarding events of 'national significance.' What circumstances constitute events of 'national significance” is left to the unbridled discretion of the Department of Homeland Security."

Dude, that language isn't being added by this bill--it's already part of the law. All of the article's fearmongering is shown to be sensationalist [garbage] by the fact that none of the consequences they predict have come about despite the fact that the stuff they're scared of is already codified in federal law. The language of the current law:

(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).

This bill changes the federal law to include DC (the residences of the POTUS and VPOTUS).

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...-fines-for-white-house-vp-residence-intruders
The House on Monday is expected to approve legislation that would formally make it illegal to intrude on White House grounds or the grounds of the vice president's residence.
Current law sets out fines against anyone who knowingly intrudes in a building where the president or vice president are staying temporarily, but does not set out fines for those who trespass in their permanent residences. To impose fines in the latter case, the Secret Service uses a provision of D.C. code dealing with misdemeanor infractions.
 

Yance

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
578
Location
Battle Creek, MI
‘‘(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"

‘‘(A) the person, during and in relation to
the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous
weapon or firearm



I know how this bill could go for someone, however from the plain reading of this is seems to only deal with someone whose actions disrupt government business or official functions. This doesnt seem to have to deal with simply carrying a firearm.

From how it appears to me, if you were somewhere in a peaceful manner, while carrying your firearm for SD you would not be found guilty of anything in this because you were not knowingly being disruptive to government business...such as causing a scene or acting obnoxiously
 

Shadow Bear

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
1,018
Location
Grand Rapids
The news on this is being pretty sensationalized. Read the following quote from the r/politics discussion of this:

This bill changes the federal law to include DC (the residences of the POTUS and VPOTUS).

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...ence-intruders
The House on Monday is expected to approve legislation that would formally make it illegal to intrude on White House grounds or the grounds of the vice president's residence.
Current law sets out fines against anyone who knowingly intrudes in a building where the president or vice president are staying temporarily, but does not set out fines for those who trespass in their permanent residences. To impose fines in the latter case, the Secret Service uses a provision of D.C. code dealing with misdemeanor infractions.

Lets hope that the abomination is only staying in DC 'temporarily'. Was he thinking of making the Whitehouse his 'permanent' residence?
 

Glock9mmOldStyle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
2,047
Location
Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
‘‘(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
"

‘‘(A) the person, during and in relation to
the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous
weapon or firearm



I know how this bill could go for someone, however from the plain reading of this is seems to only deal with someone whose actions disrupt government business or official functions. This doesnt seem to have to deal with simply carrying a firearm.

From how it appears to me, if you were somewhere in a peaceful manner, while carrying your firearm for SD you would not be found guilty of anything in this because you were not knowingly being disruptive to government business...such as causing a scene or acting obnoxiously

The problem is Yance just is I and others in MOC & others who attend gov. meetings that even at the city level just by exercising our right to self defense we have been labeled: disruptive to the peace, meetings, and said to be intimidating, and sending a chilling message to officials.

We know this is bunk but it is hard to fight false charges from a city/village with the amount of resources they can throw at us, now imagine that times a BILLION :eek:
 

quarter horseman

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
345
Location
Allegan co Michigan, USA
Glock9mmoldstyle :

The problem is Yance just is I and others in MOC & others who attend gov. meetings that even at the city level just by exercising our right to self defense we have been labeled: disruptive to the peace, meetings, and said to be intimidating, and sending a chilling message to officials.

We know this is bunk but it is hard to fight false charges from a city/village with the amount of resources they can throw at us, now imagine that times a BILLION

perfectly said,
 

michaelm_ski

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
99
Location
Clare , MICHIGAN
All we can do is call our reps and tell how we feel and see if they side with us or the antis , if they side with us re-elect them and if not vote for someone new
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,948
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
We have been sliding down that slippery slope for decades.

As a result, we cant carry most places people go without permission, the laws that govern this can confuse lawyers, and the gun owner has more to fear from the .gov than any criminal.
 
Last edited:

Glock9mmOldStyle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
2,047
Location
Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
Glock9mmoldstyle :

The problem is Yance, just as I and others in MOC, along with other citizens who attend gov. meetings - that even at the city level, just by exercising our right to self defense we have been labeled: disruptive to the peace, meetings, and said to be intimidating, and sending a chilling message to officials.

We know this is bunk but it is hard to fight false charges from a city/village with the amount of resources they can throw at us, now imagine that times a BILLION

perfectly said,

Well not quite....I was passionately typing and made a few mistakes but it should read better now :)
 
Top