Does H.R. 347 Change Anything About Your Right to Protest Politicians Under Secret Service Protection? It's All In the Word Change.

As Brian Doherty noted below, on Tuesday the House passed H.R. 347 [pdf], officially known as The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. Now all it needs to become law is President Obama's approving signage.

Contrarian standbys Congressmen Justin Amash (R-MI) and Ron Paul (R-TX) voted nay, but the bill passed 388-3. Rep. Amash wrote that the the bill "violates our rights", but Michael Mahassey, the communications director for the bill's sponsor, Rep. Thomas J.Rooney (R-Florida), sounding irritated on Wednesday (while he implied that I was not the first person to call and ask about it). Mahassey called the reaction to the bill "a whole lot of kerfuffle over nothing. This doesn’t affect anyone’s right to protest anywhere at any time. Ever.”

H.R. 347, said Mahassey, is simply a DC-centric update of already existing law. Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, already protects those under Secret Service protection — except in Washington D.C. where these protections fall under local laws against trespassing, etc. Mahassey said that the Secret Service requested the changes to this law because "right now it’s not a federal violation to jump the fence and run across the White House lawn, this bill makes it a federal violation.”

Not exactly the abolition of the First Amendment, is it? RT and The New American's warnings are hopefully an exaggeration. 

But there's reason to worry says Will Adams, the deputy chief of staff for Congressman Amash. Yes, the law updates as Mahssey said. It brings the DC trespassing violations under the federal umbrella and "Amash has no issue with that." But also does imply something else which inspired Amash to vote "nay."

Adams, who is a lawyer by trade, like his boss, explained the changes in updates from the previous statute in layman's terms. It all comes down the words "willfully" and "knowingly". As Amash wrote on his facebook (and Doherty noted):

Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it's illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway. The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal. (It expands the law by changing "willfully and knowingly" to just "knowingly" with respect to the mental state required to be charged with a crime.)

To elaborate on what seems to be subtle legal stuff, the current law being amended, Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, would be here. Note that the words are "willfully" and "knowingly" are there. H.R. 347 is here. The word "willfully" is indeed gone. What does that mean exactly?

Adams pointed me towards U.S. v. Bursey in which: 

Brett Bursey was convicted in early 2004 — after a bench trial conducted by a magistrate judge in the District of South Carolina — of willfully and knowingly entering and remaining in a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area where the President was temporarily visiting

Bursey visited a South Carolina airbase with the intention of protesting the then-imminent Iraq war. He remained in an area that the Secret Service had coordinated off for 20 or so minutes, arguing his right to stay there. His state trespassing charges were dismissed, but he was then charged under Section 1752 of title 18 above. According to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Bursey argued: 

first, he maintains that the trial court erred in finding that he was in a "restricted area" at the time of his October 2002 arrest; second, he contends that the court erred in finding that he possessed the requisite criminal intent

They also noted in their decision to reject his appeal, some of the finer points of the difference between "willfully" and "knowingly"":

As the Bryan Court observed... for a defendant to have acted willfully, he must merely have “acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful.”...we focus our discussion on whether Bursey “willfully” violated the Statute, because, generally, “[m]ore is required” with respect to conduct performed willfully than conduct performed knowingly... requires “more culpable” mens rea than knowing violation).As a general proposition, the statutory term “knowingly” requires the Government to prove only that the defendant had knowledge of the facts underlying the offense

Bursey was fined a measly 500 dollars, but the precedent is there. And remember, the punishment under both the new and old versions of section 1752 are "not more than one year" in jail for the trespass, and "not more than ten years" if "the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm." However, as Adams summed it up an email:

The bill makes it illegal knowingly to enter or remain in a restricted building or grounds without legal authority to do so.  A restricted building or grounds is defined as a “restricted area” where a person protected by the Secret Service “is or will be temporarily visiting.”  According to federal law (18 U.S.C. § 3056), the Secret Service is authorized to protect “visiting heads of foreign states or foreign governments” and “other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States.” 

So, let’s say a G-20 meeting is hosted in the U.S. and the Secret Service decides it wants a larger perimeter surrounding the event where only G-20 members and staff can be.  A person could be arrested and found guilty of violating this law—with up to 10 years in prison if they’re carrying a weapon, one year in prison if they’re not—for merely walking into the restricted area, without even knowing walking into the area is illegal.

So it's hard to know the exact implications of this one-word change, especially when some very nasty, excessive crack-downs happen already in cases like G-20 summit protests. But law is precedent and interpretation. So in a world where the National Defense Authorization Act maybe allows for the indefiniate detainment of citizens, but maybe not, but the President says he won't use the power so trust him, governments don't need one more inch – not one more word of excuse — to crack down on protest and speech. The cult of the presidency has gone far enough.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Wounded Knee||

    Now it's time for the White Man's Ghost Dance, to bring back that Golden Past.

  • Jason Godesky's Jiggle Dance||

    It's not going to bring back the mythical "Original Affluent Society."

    But it will sure look hilarious!

  • Original Affluent Society||

    Original Affluent Society isn't myth.

    It's quite well documented.

    1) Turnbull, Colin. "Mbuti Womenhood," in Women the Gatherer, Francis Dahlberg, Ed.
    2) Benedict, Ruth. "Patterns of Culture."
    3) Zerzan, John. Future Primitive, in "Limited Wants, Unlimited Means". John M. Gowdy, ed.
    4) Darwin, Charles. "The Decent of Man."
    5) Richards, Cara B. "Matriarchy or mistake: The role of Iroquois women through time." Pg 36-45
    6) Leacock, Elanor, and Jacqueline Goodman. "Montagnais marriage and the Jesuits in the 17th century." Western Canadian Journal of Anthropology.
    7) Kaberry, Phyllis M. "Aboriginal woman in changing navajo society", pg. 143. American Anthropologist. 59:101-11
    8) Weatherford, Jack. "Native Roots: How The Indians Enriched America". Pg 38-42.

  • Original Affluent Society||

    9) Beyond "The Original Affluent Society."
    10) Endicott, K. "Batek Negrito religion: the world view and rituals of a hunting and gathering peopel of peninsular Malaysia." pg. 21.
    11) Sahlins, M. "Notes on the original affluency society," in Man the Hunter. Edited by R.B. Lee and I. DeVore, pp. 85-89.
    12) Kaplan, D. “The Darker Side of the Original Affluent Society”, Journal of Anthropological Research 56(3) pp.301-324.
    13) Marshall, Lorna. "Sharing, Talking, and Giving," pg 72, in Limited Wants, Unlimited Means. John M. Gowdy, Ed.
    14) Lee, Richard B. "What Hunters Do For A Livings." pg 50-51, in Limited Wants, Unlimited Means. John M Gowdy, Ed.
    15) Marshall, Lorna. "Sharing, Talking and Giving." Pg 69. In Limited Wants, Unlimited Means. John M. Gowdy, Ed.
    16) Lee, Richard B. "What Hunters Do For A Living." Pg 50-51. Limited Wants, Unlimited Means. John M. Gowdy, Ed.

  • Original Affluent Society||

    17) Post, Laurens van der. "The Lost World of the Kalahari."
    18) Ciprini, Lido. The Andaman Islanders.
    19) DeVries, Arnold. "Primitive Man and his Food."
    20) Levi-Strauss, Claude. "Myth and Meaning"
    21) Boyden, S. V. "The Impact of Civilizationon On The Biology of Man."
    22) Johanson, Donald and James Shreeve. "Lucy's Child: The Discovery of a Human Ancestor."
    23) Binford, Lewis. "Faunal Remains from Klasies River Mouth."
    24) Zihlman, Adrienne. "Women as Shapers of the Human Adaptation" in "Women the Gatherer." F Dahlberg, Ed.
    25) Binford, Lewis. "Were there elephant hunters at Toorala?"
    26) Leacock, Elanor and Richard B. Lee. Editors. "Politics and History in Band Societies."
    27) Duffy, Kevin. "Children of the Forest: Africa's Mbuti Pygmies."

  • Original Affluent Society||

    28) Radin, Paul."The World of Primitive Man."
    29) Bodley, John. "Anthropology and Contemporary Human Problems."
    30) Kroeber, Therodora. "Ishi in Two Worlds: A Biography of the Last Wild Indian in North America."

    Hunter Gatherers And The Golden Age Of Man
    http://www.raw-food-health.net.....erers.html

  • Jason Godesky's Jiggle Dance||

    It's not going to bring back the mythical "Original Affluent Society."

    But it will sure look hilarious!

  • Xenocles||

    Is this one of those stupid arrow to the knee jokes?

  • If only...||

    It's more WI proselytizing. Nobody here buys his shit, yet he keeps posting. Something ain't connection well in his brain.

  • ||

    It is the same nasty bitch that is behind all of it. She is getting increasingly desperate.

  • ||

    Somebody is losing it...

    I cannot divulge his identity...Doctor/Patient confidentiality, you understand...

    But his initials are John.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    This is as stoopid as the "slavery reparations" argument, Godesky.

    Give it up. No one is going to ever take you seriously.

  • We are the 0.26% on good days.||

    Psychologically projecting, fellows?

    - Your Market Fundamentalism evangelism is an epic fail.
    - Nobody takes you seriously.
    - Hope and change comes from libertarian chatrooms.

    LULZ

    The deeper allure of Constitutionalism is that it purports to be, not only history which explains, but technique which controls. Resentful and suspicious, Constitutionalists are certain that conniving judges, legislators and lawyers switched their own false law for the real law when the people weren't looking.

    "CONSTITUTIONALISM": THE WHITE MAN'S GHOST DANCE
    by Robert C. Black
    www.spunk.org/library/writers/black/sp001650.html

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Fuck off, Godesky.

  • Libertarian = Fucking Stupid||

    "European Americans were alarmed by the sight of the many Great Basin and Plains tribes performing the Ghost Dance, worried that it might be a prelude to armed attack."

    Wounded Knee Massacre
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre

  • ||

    What a nice discussion of some off the different levels of intent we were discussing earlier today. I would say that the difference between "knowingly" and "knowingly and willfully" is quite significant, myself.

  • ||

    I would say that under the premise of "no law," they can fuck off with either their "knowingly" or their "willingly."

  • Gojira||

    Just once, fucking ONCE, I would like a law to be udated by adding the word, "penises", or possibly "va-jay-jay".

  • ||

    Personally, I don't think even the President should have round-the-clock, taxpayer-funded protection. If he wants full-time bodyguards he can pay for them out of his own pocket.

  • Liberal||

    BUT BUT WHO WOULD PROTECT HIM THEN?!!111!

  • ||

    Presidents did fine without Secret Service protection a hundred years. We only lost three to assassination and a couple of them probably had it coming anyway.

  • ||

    And remember, trying to kill Andy Jackson will you beaten to death by Andy Jackson.
    http://history1800s.about.com/.....ions_2.htm

  • ||

    I you shot Andrew Jackson you'd just make him mad.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Some kind of protection is understandable. Taking control over private property is bullshit.

  • Privation Property was stolen.||

    So why can't they steal it again?

    White Man's Ghost Dance
    Conjuring the Golden Past

  • cw||

    [T]he reaction to the bill [is] "a whole lot of kerfuffle over nothing. This doesn’t effect [sic] anyone’s right to protest anywhere at any time. Ever.”

    What was that old saying about politicians and lying?

  • Sevo||

    "Rep. Thomas J.Rooney (R-Florida),[...]called the reaction to the bill "a whole lot of kerfuffle over nothing. This doesn’t affect anyone’s right to protest anywhere at any time. Ever.”"

    So if it has no effect, why pass it?

  • ||

    Why are we even wondering whether or not this law will be abused by our masters?

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    Because there are plenty of people in the world who are a lot more trusting than regular Reason readers, libertarians etc. and we care about their freedom as well?

  • Gojira||

    ...and we care about their freedom as well?

    [citation needed]

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    I care!

    JW started the "we" train there. I care, dang it. That's almost all I know.

  • ||

    Damn it Lucy! Don't you know a royal 'we' when you see it?

    I must be royal, since so many people keep telling me I'm a royal one.

  • Gojira||

    "We"? Damnit, I'm sick of all the collectivism on this site! I'm going over to Free Republic, where they really understand limited government!

  • ||

    JW started the "we" train there. I care, dang it. That's almost all I know.

    So, you're involved in a train with JW and Jim?

    Youse naaaaaaaaasty!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Don't do it, Gojira. I'm proud I got kicked off there, it was a mistake to start an account in the first place... but I was naive. I have learned since then.

  • ||

    Lucy, for the record, you can ride 'our' train any time you want. I don't care if you play engine, caboose, or like being sandwiched between to two.

    BTW, I care too.

  • ||

    To be frank Lucy, I don't know if they deserve it any longer.

    If Facebook feeds are any indicator, Rush Limbaugh calling someone a "slut" and one non-profit withdrawing its support for another are the two most pressing issues of our country.

  • Gojira||

    Your first problem is, you're using Facebook.

  • ||

    It keeps me on the pulse of our nation.

  • Gojira||

    Exactly.

  • ||

    If Facebook feeds are any indicator,

    It keeps me on the pulse of our nation.

    You take the nation's pulse by sticking your finger up its asshole?

  • ||

    OK, smart guy. How do you take someone's pulse?

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    I don't know if "deserve" is the point. I'm going to fight for those sons of bitches anyway.

  • ||

    You'll shoot your eye out!

  • Gojira||

    Why drag their mothers into this?

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    You guys, I don't know why I keep being youthful and idealistic.

    Sheesh.

    Just kidding, I love you all. Sort of. Mostly.

  • ||

    Just kidding, I love you all. Sort of. Mostly.

    You would have to say this while Jim is going through his pon farr state. Now I have to fight him. Again.

  • Gojira||

    Don't worry Lucy, the idealism will die with your youth. Trust me.

    And I'm always in pon farr, JW. Always.

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    Nope.

  • Frank Lucy, Claims Adjuster||

    I'm still trying to figure out how I got dragged into this conversation.

  • ||

    Nietzsche proved that dealism ultimately leads to nihilism.

    Join us, Lucy.

  • Brandon||

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

    Nope, don't see anything about "deserve" in there.

  • ||

    You reap what you sow.

    Considering the clown shoes (which show little to no regard to what you posted) the citizenry has been electing and re-electing, they shouldn't be too surprised when they come for them too.

    Fascism. It's what's for dinner.

  • Ted S.||

    Whom did Rush Limbaugh call a slut?

  • T||

    Your mom!

  • Banjoopy||

    You're Shmoopy!

  • ||

    Your anusitis is flaring up again, rectal.

  • mrs rectal cooter||

    aww geez not this shit again

  • Schmoopy||

    This is like the worst wedding ever.

  • ||

    That's it? That's the best you can come up with? Jesus Tapdancin' Christ, rectal. You need to start working with a "quality over quantity" mentality for a change.

  • Schmoopy||

    Ha! You think I'm "rectal"!

    Mind games working...

    Prepare plans for Phase Two: The Reception!

  • ||

    You 2 are carrying during the wedding, right?

    I would.

  • ||

    carrying during the wedding

    That's what love is all about, Charlie Brown!

  • Quentin Tarantino||

    Whoa, whoa, let's just put a stop to all this wedding-massacre nonsense, shall we?

    A: Sloopy and Banjos are not Bill and "The Bride," and

    Two: Nobody cares!

    OK?

    This place is not genius.
    I...am genius.

    OK?

    Get over yourselves!

    Where's my fucking drink?

  • ||

    Go fuck yourself rather.

  • Quentin Tarantino||

    Johnny! Buy you a drink?

    Yeah, yeah..."I don' drink no' mo', Massa!"

    Right. But we know better, don't we, Johnny! The usual? Keystone Ice, with a twist of irony?

  • ||

    At least you have stopped denying your rather. I am sorry your life sucks. I am sorry no one will ever marry you. I am sorry you are probably working on a worthless degree and will soon be living in a tent somewhere after you loans run out. But it is not Reason's fault.

  • Quentin Tarantino||

    At least you have stopped denying your [sic] rather.

    But I'm not "rather."
    That's your fantasy.
    Try again. Thx.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Its a problem that people have hassles dealing with the secret police when they are trying to access their own property, just because they live near Obama's stupid house.

    Same bullshit with the restricted airspace that moves with the stupid jumbojet. Pilots who were unaware or had no way of predicting where it would move have had huge problems.

    The presence of any government official, who are no more important than me, should have no impact on the ability of citizens to move freely anywhere where they normally have the right to be.

  • cw||

    That whole tidbit about "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ... ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH" is just so passe.

  • Zeb||

    There is more than speech in the first amendment. Why does everyone always want to cram everything into "speech"? This clearly has to do with the right to peacefully assemble. The right to be in a certain place at a certain time has nothing to do with speech.

  • Confused||

    the ball "violates our rights"

    What ball?

  • William||

    Rep. Amash may have said the ball "violates our rights"

    I think she meant to type "bill."
    My mother calls me "Ball."
    But she's...well...touched, if you know what I mean.

  • I'm pretty sure Tony's balls..||

    ...are violating somebody's rights, as we speak.

  • Not really Lucy Steigerwald ||

    I cant tipe good.
    Cut me sum slak!

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    A+, would get trolled again.

  • Not really Lucy Steigerwald||

    You like me?
    You really like me?

  • Tony, The Derider, Chad, etc.||

    The government grants rights, so the government can take them away.

    Those quaint "natural rights" are just metaphysical mumbojumbo.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Yep, pretty much covers every Tony/Derider/Chad/etc. post. Ever.

    Ever.

  • Tony the Statist||

    What's more important: your right to speak freely about how you want to murder old people, or the public interest?

  • Sevo||

    ^ Classic!

  • Tony the Statist||

    Libertarians hold these presuppositions, these so-called "natural rights"; these are just axioms.

    I, on the other hand, care about the public interest. Because, as a consequentialist, what's best for everyone is in the public's interest.

  • Sevo||

    "I, on the other hand, care about the public interest. Because, as a consequentialist, what's best for everyone is in the public's interest."

    You left out how you're superior since you don't favor feeding fried kids to granny and libertarians obviously do if they disagree!

  • joe||

    God bless the Secret Service. They're doing God's work, registering millions of people as troublemakers, protecting our great Community Organizer in some of the toughest neighborhoods in America.

  • Xenocles||

    For the TEAM BLUE partisans keeping score who don't like this thing, exactly zero Democrats voted against it.

  • Sevo||

    Yeah, but it looks like only two Repubs did.
    I have a hard time making a case for a difference.

  • Xenocles||

    GovTrack says three, not that it puts a lot of good light on the GOP. I just have some super hacks for friends.

    Who's that guy from Texas? It looks like they forgot to put in his last name - there are just two first names there.

  • No.||

    Ellison did.

  • ||

    Well-written analysis, Lucy. I'll be curious to see how the media portray this vote and the inevitable rubber-stamping coming from the White House.

    And as someone said earlier today, Ron Paul needs to use this as a wedge issue to separate himself from the other candidates ahead of Super Tuesday. There just aren't enough people out there that care or know enough about economics. He needs a social issue as well.

  • cw||

    Some how I doubt this story will make a major splash in the national news.

  • ||

    I'll be curious to see how the media portray this vote

    Some thing tells me that you're going to stay curious.

  • Average American||

    Freedom is too hard. And outdated.

    The government told me so.

  • Schmoopy||

    You're Banjoopy!

    I mean Schmoopy!

  • Brian Doherty||

    Where in the text of the bill does it say anything about D.C.? I'm dubious about that interpretation of Mr. Mahassey. It does not seem to be supported by anything in the actual bill.

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    It doesn't. And yet Amash's fellow said this was true as well. Definitely work checking out further.

  • DK||

    HR 347 states:

    Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to
    read as follows: ...

    Which, I gather, means that Section 1752 is completely replaced by that text of HR 347. So, subsection (d) (as well as subsection (c)) of Section 1752 has been eliminated. Subsection (d) contains the D.C. language:

    (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.

  • DK||

    Which also means that it is not simply DC-centric. It also applies to any existing state law.

  • ||

    He seems to be saying that pre-existing law already prohibits the activity in question everywhere except DC. So the effect of this law merely extends it to DC, even though it doesn't explicitly say so in the law.

  • Brian Doherty||

    That certainly seems to be what he's saying, and yet I see nothing at all in the text of the law as publicly released that says or indicates or even hints at that. Perhaps this is all some subsection of some larger framing farther back in the code that id's this law as applying only to D.C. but who knows.

  • ||

    A person could be arrested and found guilty of violating this law—with up to 10 years in prison if they’re carrying a weapon, one year in prison if they’re not—for merely walking into the restricted area, without even knowing walking into the area is illegal.

    Wouldn't that situation fail the "knowingly" requirement? As the court case said, "knowingly" requires the govt to prove knowledge of the fact that one was violating the law.

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Tulpa = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Tulpa = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Tulpa = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Tulpa = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Tulpa = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Tulpa = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Tulpa = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Tulpa = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Tulpa = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Tulpa = White Indian

  • Brian Doherty||

    My reading of the case Lucy quoted is that "knowingly" means "you know you did the thing"---WILLFULLY means you knew you were breaking the law in doing so. That seems like a big difference.

  • ||

    My reading is the same, but the hypothetical that Mr Adams offers still fails the "knowningly" test. If you don't know the area is being visited by the SS-protected official, you don't know you did the thing. It's not a case of ignorance of the law, it's a case of not knowing the facts of the situation that make the law apply.

  • Citizen Denizen||

    The bill ... makes it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal. (It expands the law by changing "willfully and knowingly" to just "knowingly" with respect to the mental state required to be charged with a crime.)

    Emphasis added. Sorry, I'm just not getting this. It seems logical that the emphasized clause is superfluous. That is, the bill criminalizes being in "an area where an official is visiting" (whatever that means). It appears one's mental state has nothing to do with it.

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Citizen Denizen = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Citizen Denizen = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Citizen Denizen = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Citizen Denizen = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Citizen Denizen = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Citizen Denizen = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Citizen Denizen = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Citizen Denizen = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Citizen Denizen = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Citizen Denizen = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Citizen Denizen = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Citizen Denizen = White Indian

  • Anonymous||

    Mr. Cooter = Anonymous Fuck

  • mrs rectal cooter||

    aww geez not this shit again

  • mrs rectal cooter||

    aww geez not this shit again

  • mrs rectal cooter||

    aww geez not this shit again

  • mrs rectal cooter||

    aww geez not this shit again

  • Mr. Cooter||

    mrs rectal cooter = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    mrs rectal cooter = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    mrs rectal cooter = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    mrs rectal cooter = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    mrs rectal cooter = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    mrs rectal cooter = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    mrs rectal cooter = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    mrs rectal cooter = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    mrs rectal cooter = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    mrs rectal cooter = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    mrs rectal cooter = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    mrs rectal cooter = White Indian

  • Almanian||

    I Love Lucy™
    Those of you with chemical imbalances? Not so much.

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Almanian = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Almanian = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Almanian = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Almanian = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Almanian = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Almanian = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Almanian = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Almanian = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Almanian = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Almanian = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Almanian = White Indian

  • Mr. Cooter||

    Almanian = White Indian

  • mrs rectal cooter||

    take 2 shots of clorox and call me in the morning

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Fuck. Team Blue just scored another hit on the Constitution, Team Red won't be far behind... serious shit goin' on... and some fuckhead(s) hafta be fuckin' the threads.

    We are fucked, people.

  • A Serious Man||

    It's like a competition between Team Red and Team Blue. They want to see who can trample the Constitution the most without arousing the ire of the American people in any meaningful way.

  • mrs rectal cooter||

  • mrs rectal cooter||

    Gimme one reason to stay here

  • SIV||

    388-3

    Lucy, you mention Paul and Amash but not Paul Broun(R-GA), the OTHER Congressman to vote against it. It's like Reason has some disconnect/bias when it comes to the fact that wacky far-right fundy Christians are the only "libertarian" elected officials in Washington.

  • ||

    For a magazine called REASON...

  • Libertarian = Fundamentalism||

    Capitalist Market Fundamentalism is really barely secularized Calvinism.

    The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.....Capitalism

    Jesus* wants you for a Sunbeam,
    To shine for him each day.

    *a.k.a., The Invisible Hand

  • No.||

    Nor did she mention Ellison (D-MN) who was the other Congressman to vote on the 2012 version, while Ron Paul did not vote.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Anyone want to take bets as to which Team will be in charge when martial law is declared in the United States?

    Tie-breaker is the one who picks the year closest to the actual shit-hammering.

    I'm in for fiddy bucks. Takers?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I'm picking Team Red to be in charge when martial law is imposed, and by the year 2015.

    And I'm being optimistic.

  • John Titor||

    I said 2007, but my timeline may be off

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Shit, meant 2018... hit the wrong button. Been a long-assed day.

  • Almanian||

    I see the Afghans are burning pictures of the President. OUR president, not THEIRS.

    So....#WINNING?

    They're secretly falling into our clever policy of getting everyone to love us by getting everyone to hate us. Again.

    Genius!

  • PantsFan||

    Wow what happened here?
    Anyway, Jets rock Panthers 7-0.
    Watch this rare 5 on 1 goal.
    http://video.nhl.com/videocent.....ent=WPG433

  • Coeus||

    Fundraiser for man who shot officers in self defense served with cease and desist for not being registered. No letters have gone out to the unregistered counter-protest charity's for the police.

    http://www.policeone.com/Offic.....er-halted/

    Bonus: policeone comments

  • rather||

    Did they ever speak about the Kelly Thomas police murder?

  • Dr. Cox||

    Have you taken your clorox yet?

  • ||

    waaaaah!

  • ||

    Wow. I have never read policeone comments before. Just....Wow.

  • LilDebbie||

    Hi, Jason! I see you haven't killed yourself yet. If you can't afford charcoal to go the carbon monoxide route, I'm sure if you gambol far enough you'll encounter a train you can lie down in front of. Be sure to hide first so the conductor doesn't have time to stop before running you over and ending your suffering.

  • Dr. Cox||

    It's all rectal.
    As her doctor, I prescriped 2 shots of clorox every 4 hours until the pain goes away.
    She should be fine immediately.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Might be old news to other Reasonoids, but I just now found it, and I'm both horrified and not the least bit surprised:

    http://www.alternet.org/newsan.....itter_for_"marijuana,"_other_keywords/#paragraph3

  • Coeus||

    Mother-of-God

  • Mr. FIFY||

    And - as I've been reminding the liberals here - this is happening on Barry's watch in the Oval Office.

    His party. Team Blue. The one that should be shitcanning such things, but isn't.

  • SPLC||

    With OUR blessing. Because it's for the children.

  • ||

    Do you think that is all they are searching for?
    Ten bucks to a hole-in-a-dohnut says every one of us is on a DHS list. Well, except Tony. He probably works for them.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Oh, of course not, Suth. It's still an indictment against Team Blue, though, because they're in power now.

    And Team Red, of course.

  • Zeb||

    This is one of many reasons I only have a fake Facebook profile. And never look at it.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." - Mitch Hedberg

  • Denis Leary||

    brilliant.

  • chrys||

    i really like it. amazing

    [url=http://www.imigyled.com/product/she/]LED Spotlights[/url]

  • ||

    I don't know who this impostor is, but the real Cooter died from inhaling too much swamp gas.

  • Kelly Thomas died for your sin||

    For the love of money [POLIS' privation property values] is the root of all evil [POLICe brutality.] ~1 Timothy 6:10

    Don't druggies, derelicts, and darkies lower privation property values?

    Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment...unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? ~Murray Rothbard

    In short; RACIALIST SCIENCE is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors. ~Murray Rothbard

    (Murray Rothbard (1926-1995) was the dean of the Austrian School of economics and the founder of libertarianism.)

  • ||

    Gotta just love them bought and paid for politicians!

    www.Went-Anon.tk

  • ||

    I am no lawyer or genius, but something isnt adding up for me. What am I missing?

    If I am walking along next to a secret service cordoned off area and I trip and fall into the area I am committing a crime because I know it is a restricted area? Under the previous law I would not be because I lacked intent, but under the current one I only need knowledge to be guilty?

    It seems to me they are merely trying to redefine the word 'guilty', and dispense with the notion of mens rea; like they paid any attention to it before.....

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, it took me a while to figure out the significance of the change, but I think that this is pretty much it. If you happen to wander into an area restricted under this law, without knowing that you weren't supposed to be there, and someone tells you that you are not supposed to be there before you manage to wander out of the restricted area, you would be guilty under the new wording. And if you happened to be carrying a handgun (even legally as far as I can see), you could go away for 10 years. I don't know if it is the death of the right to assemble, but it is not insignificant.

  • ||

    I call bullshit.

    In another footnote in the decision, the court expands on what exactly the extra burden that "willfully" entails that "knowingly" does not:

    "In Bryan, the Court acknowledged that it had held to the contrary in a line of decisions addressing currency and taxation statutes — that is, that the term "willfully" in a criminal statute required that the defendant possess knowledge of the particular law that he was charged with violating. ... As in Bryan, the Ratzlaf and Cheek line of decisions are inapposite to these circumstances, where the Statute is not technical like the currency and taxation laws and the danger of an innocent state of mind is diminished."

  • ||

    continued... In other words, in certain situations courts have ruled that "willfully" requires the defendant to have knowledge of the *particular law* they are being charged with, because the law is obtuse and may make things criminal that aren't apparently criminal. And the court found it didn't apply to the Bursey case because the statue in question was straightforward. Whereas "knowingly" only requires that the defendant was notified that they are violating a law, even if they don't know exactly what that law is.

    The bottom line is that changing "willfully and knowingly" to "knowingly" only changes the burden of proof from "the defendant has been told they are violating the law and understands the particular they are in violation of" to "the defendant has been told they are violating the law".

  • ||

    continued...Amash's lawyer's example of how "A person could be arrested and found guilty of violating this law—with up to 10 years in prison if they’re carrying a weapon, one year in prison if they’re not—for merely walking into the restricted area, without even knowing walking into the area is illegal" is just wrong. First off, the statue clearly states that the area must be cordoned off and that people are made aware of the fact that it is off limits - a requirement that the court held to be met in Bursey as the defendant was notified several times by several people. Second, you still have to "knowingly" be violating the law, in that you would have to be told that what you're doing is illegal.

  • ||

    continued...

    Why did they change the wording? My guess is that since the appeals court had already ruled that if a defendant broke the law knowingly they had de facto broken the law willingly as well, the word unwillingly was entirely unnecessary to begin with. So it was removed. And thus began must pointless gnashing of teeth.

  • ||

    Why didn't someone propose to amend the bill to add the word "willfully" if it was that big of a deal? or add it to all but (1) so that the update carries through to the spirit of the amendment without squashing the rights of the people?

  • ||

    Tell Obama to VETO “H.R. 347” which violates the context of the 1st Amendment.

    The Petition link is @ http://wh.gov/9r0.

    Like the “Patriot Act”, which really should have been called the “Spy & search everyone ACT” or the “Make everyone’s private information public and pass it around in the N-DEx database ACT” and the so called Bill “SOPA & PIPA”, which should have been called the “Keep citizens misinformed, ☭☪ompliant ACT” and to “Stop freedom of speech from being expressed on the internet, by copyrighting the ©Bills & ©Laws being discussed ACT”?

    So you see, these B.S. / U.S. law titles like “The Trespass Act” which really should be called “Invisible & moveable property line with an asshole in the middle ACT” do not mean what they say, unless you read the context within!

  • Francoise Arouete||

    Thanks for your excellent attempt at clarity re the state of mind requirement. Yo might like to view H.R. 347 Does Not Violate First Amendment. at Open Salon H.R. 347 http://open.salon.com/blog/f_a....._amendment Where the most recent comments clarify what this means as a practical matter.

  • vvvpr||

    Implying HR 347 is no big deal because much of it was already law is like saying NDAA 2012 is OK because we already had AUMF 2001.

  • ironboltbruce||

    Implying HR 347 is no big deal because much of it was already law is like saying NDAA 2012 is OK because we already had AUMF 2001.

  • ||

    Paul wasn't present, according to Roll Call.

  • jerseys||

    But are there that are of a high enough quality to last for a long period of time?
    Tebow moved to No. 1 on the top-selling NFL jerseys list back in April in the weeks following the NFL Draft,click here
    and his immense popularity hasn't waned. A former Heisman Trophy winner at Florida, Tebow enters the with a rare mix of strength, talent and humility.We are excited about the holiday season in force and it's time, the best gift tag for 2010 found. appear with enormous availability of different gifts like the perfect choice of gift is a snap, but it is not.

  • NoPity||

    When he took away the 5th amendment, I said it didn’t affect me
    When he took away the 1st amendment, I said it didn't affect me
    When he took away the 2nd amendment, I said it didn't affect me
    But when he deactivated my FaceBook, I rose up to make a stand, but was alone

    Wake up America... Ron Paul 2012

  • ||

    Worst comment section ever. Just laugh it off sheeple.

  • sosobadr||

  • sosobadr||

  • sosobadr||

  • sosobadr||

  • sosobadr||

  • sosobadr||

  • sosobadr||

  • Clara Nelson||

    I don't love this! why would anyone pass this bill?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement