Trump protesters are breaking federal law.

The protest undertaken by Black Lives Matter and Move-OnOrg were illegal under federal law. Protests, if disruptive, are outlawed under H.R. 347.

Interestingly, the law was passed by Obama quietly in 2012.  It basically says that at any event in which the U. S. secret Service is involved (Trump has Secret Service protection), it is unlawful and a criminal offense to have disruptive protest.

The law is explicit. Read it. If you are in a hurry, just read the highlighted sections. As you can see the leaders of Black Lives Matter and Move-OnOrg are culpable, as well. OK, federal marshals – GO GET ‘EM!

H. R. 347

One Hundred Twelfth Congress of the United States of America


Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the third day of January, two thousand and twelve an Act to correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011’’.


Sec. 1752.

Restricted building or grounds



(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;

(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;

(3) 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; or

(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).(b)

The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is—

(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if—

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

(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and

(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.

(c) In this section—

(1) the term restricted buildings or grounds means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area—

(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds;

(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or

(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and

(2) the term other person protected by the Secret Service means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.

And thanks to MG for sending this to me.

 Roy Filly

About Roy Filly

Please read my first blog in which I describe myself and my goals.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Trump protesters are breaking federal law.

  1. Eric Weitze says:

    Amazing that you found this law. The problem is that so many new laws, rules and regulations are added every year not even the government knows how to find and act on them. Although in this case Obama’s government might have looked the other way.

  2. Roy Filly says:

    Thank you for your comment. First, MG found this law and sent it to me – credit where credit is due. But you are correct, the Obama administration would have enforced this at a Hillary rally – but a Trump rally, not so much!

  3. Starchild says:

    Wow, not a word here about the Constitution! When someone who (if I’m not mistaken) claims to support the United States’ governing document is writing about a statute that appears to blatantly violate it, one might expect the document to at least be mentioned. I’m pretty sure there’s nothing in the First Amendment about a “Secret Service exemption” or a “federal building exemption” or an “official functions exemption”!

    One might also think that someone who’s a vociferous critic of the Obama administration might be at least a little skeptical about an Obama-signed measure. But nope, apparently not!

    Oh, but the statute only outlaws “disruptive” protests, I hear anti-police-reform voices objecting. Uh, you think that makes it okay? The term “disruptive” is about as broad and vague as the phrase “general welfare”. Uber is famously “disruptive”. In fact, protests in general tend to be “disruptive” by nature. That’s kind of their POINT!

    But I guess “our imperial leaders” don’t yet have the chutzpah to criminalize protesting per se, so they’re trying to criminalize it a little bit at a time under various narrower pretexts. It’s a shame to see those who ought to know better playing into their hands though.

    • Roy Filly says:

      Your correct about a few things. I don’t like Obama. I don’t like most of what his administration says is “against the law” (H.R. 347 is just one example). and I don’t like Black Lives Matter and Move-OnOrg. But I do like the phrase “tongue in cheek.” Look it up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s