And it is only a felony if the person is armed or if the act of violence results in death or "significant bodily injury."
Actually that carries one sentence, you can be sentenced to up to a year otherwise. Section (2) of that part of the bill.
Some of the language is a bit concerning.
Section a-4 is reasonable. Violence bad.
The other sections do limit free speech in a way similar to those "free speech zones" we heard so much about. I'm not sure I completely agree with this.
So if someone is found hiding in a closet and carrying a gun when the building is being secured, nothing should be done? Just let him stay until he uses the gun? (Extreme example, but with a point)
So if someone is found hiding in a closet and carrying a gun when the building is being secured, nothing should be done? Just let him stay until he uses the gun? (Extreme example, but with a point)
Not in your own closet, but in someone else's, yes, especially if the building is being secured.Is it illegal to hide in a closet with a gun?
If the maximum sentence is a year or less, it is not a felony. The clip stated you could be charged with a felony for simple peaceable assembly, or redress of grievances.
So if someone is found hiding in a closet and carrying a gun when the building is being secured, nothing should be done? Just let him stay until he uses the gun? (Extreme example, but with a point)
On a less inflamatory note, how is this law any different from the laws in many states governing protests outside abortion clinics? ("Stay outside, don't block the entrances and parking lots, don't trample the lawn, don't intimidate those going inside, no guns and no violence.")
You can be charged simply by disrupting, you don't need to have a weapon.
But not as a felony.
And disrupting is more than just exercising free speech. It's actively interfering with the ability of the proceedings to continue.
Again, how is this different from laws restricting the activiies of abortion clinic protesters?
Pretty sure the Secret Service doesn't need a new law to take care of that. It's already their job to do that.
Is it illegal to hide in a closet with a gun?
Ah yes, it would make it a misdemeanor in that case. Still a free speech restriction, which many will have problems with.
If the maximum sentence is a year or less, it is not a felony. The clip stated you could be charged with a felony for simple peaceable assembly, or redress of grievances.
So if someone is found hiding in a closet and carrying a gun when the building is being secured, nothing should be done? Just let him stay until he uses the gun? (Extreme example, but with a point)
On a less inflamatory note, how is this law any different from the laws in many states governing protests outside abortion clinics? ("Stay outside, don't block the entrances and parking lots, don't trample the lawn, don't intimidate those going inside, no guns and no violence.")
(a) Whoeveror grounds without lawful authority to do so;
(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building
Vylo said that only the portion about violence made sense. So I chose an example (and admitted it was an extreme example) of something which, taking his statement at face value he would be OK with. I just wanted to see if he really was OK with it, or if he had been overgeneralizing.
Oh, my bad, I lumped having the weapon in with violence in my mind.
I think the free speech objections, made by some here, is in regards to this specific language in the statute. I suppose the thought is the government could simply declare some area as "restricted" and thereby preclude people from using the area for expressive purposes. The difference between this statute and those laws regulating a distance outside of abortion clinics is the fact the latter generally is more specific because the restricted area is in relation to some fixed edifice, building, or structure of some specific kind.
Unless you mean that it does not specify exactly how far from the building the "grounds" extends. If that is your objection, then, yes, I agree that the law should be clearer. It should not allow whoever it is who designates a building "restricted" (and the law does not define who that is) to declare, for example, that the restricted "grounds" extend for a mile from the building in every direction