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

[onenote]

22. I don't dispute the difference between willfully and knowingly

however, two of the four provisions expressly require both knowledge and intent, so dropping "willfully" from those provisions doesn't change anything. In the first provision, its now harder to violate the law since the government has to prove that the accused knew that they were without lawful authority to be in the restricted area. As noted, its true that the law no longer requires that acts of physical violence be committed "willfully" but that's not unusual for such types of behavior.

I'm generally with you on BIll of Rights issues -- however, I should add that I don't view physical violence against another person or someone else's property as a protected First Amendment right (which is why I'm not so concerned about the dropping of the "willful" element from the fourth provision.

One last point: you mention the scope of the bill's coverage with respect to restericted areas where the President or someone else protected by the secret service will be (but is not presently) visiting. That language, of course, has been in the law for a very long time and would still be in the law if HR 347 was not enacted.

Thanks.