I oppose the changes to law HR 347 brings. I am a member of DU in good standing,

[mmonk]

9. The "willfully" standard is more restrictive.

Last edited Wed Mar 7, 2012, 07:22 AM - Edit history (1)

The courts have ruled "willfully" includes that a jury must find that the defendent acted an evil-meaning mind, that they acted with knowledge that their conduct was unlawful.”

"Knowingly", only “requires proof of knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense,” unless a statute’s text dictates otherwise.

It also includes places someone under secret service protection may be scheduled to visit (but not there at present of arrest). It also includes anyone given secret service protection, not just the President and Vice President that might be present.

It also makes it easier for a person to violate § 1752.

When it comes to Bill of Rights issues, I tend for more, not less restrictive proof of offense or unlawful conduct.

Your points are duly noted.