Yesterday we shared the news that on the 28th of February, H.R. 347, Restricted Building or Grounds, passed in the House 399 to 3, with 30 not voting. Two Colorado representatives, Dianna DeGette and Doug Lamborn, did not vote. All 5 remaining Colorado representatives voted for the bill. H.R. 347 states (among other violations) that those who “knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds…” are to be punished with a fine and/or up to a year in jail (10 years if you violated this law with a weapon or dangerous firearm).
This piece of legislation restricts where and how freedom of assembly can be practiced. The wording of the law places these restrictions on any area containing a person under the protection of the secret service, and specifically states (as you can see above) that obstruction or impedence is forbidden. It seems that as written, a peaceful sit-in on capitol steps to protest a government action or official could be seen as obstruction or impedence to ingress or egress. In that light, H.R. 347 doesn’t seem to be a good piece of legislation. Here’s the thing though - This law already exists.
In 1982, the legislature extended the zone of protection granted to the President to any person protected by the Secret Service, and the fine was increased to $1000 (Pub L. 97-308). In 1984 they clarified that if the person declined Secret Service protection, the restriction would not apply. In 1994, they changed the wording describing the fine from “not more than” to “not exceeding.” And then in 2006, as part of the improvement and reauthorization of the Patriot Act, under section 602, Interference with national Special Security Events, the legislature made the following changes (see the whole list here):
- Residences of the President and others was expanded to “Restricted buildings and grounds”
- A prison sentence of not more than 6 months was added to the fine.
- The qualifiers willfully and knowingly were inserted to any of the actions which could trigger punishment
Last year H.R. 347 showed up in close to its current form, where the word “willfully” disappeared from the text, and the prison term was increased to 1 year. It again passed the legislature with ease, but the President never signed it. This year’s H.R. 347 looks nearly identical.
Justin Amash, one of the three representatives who voted no, posted this explanation on his facebook page yesterday: “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.).” He goes on to say “Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity—even if that activity is annoying to those government officials—violates our rights.”
It’s obvious that over the years this legislation and the punishment it codifies has expanded – from a $300 fine to a year in jail and a $1000 fine, from the President’s residence to an area deemed “restricted”. While we are about 6 years too late to prevent this sort of restriction, and 40 years too late to eliminate it entirely, we believe it is still important to resist the erosion of the freedom to assemble where and when we can. To share your opinion on H.R. 347, feel free to contact the White House directly or sign the petition set up at the We the People page. To discuss the matter directly with your representative, find them here and give them a call.