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

[onenote]

68. where do you get that idea?

The restated law applies to four situations.

The first is "knowingly" entering or remaining in a restricted area "without lawful authority." On its face that is only a crime if the accused acts knowingly (meaning the accused knows that they are in the a restricted area and also knows that they lack the lawful authority.

The second and third involve engaging in disorderly conduct and blocking ingress/egress to restricted areas. In both instances the law on its face requires that these acts be committed with both knowledge and intent.

Finally, the law makes it a federal offense to "knowingly" commit an act of physical violence against a person or against property in a restricted area.

So it appears that you are zero for four in your understanding of HR 347 and your contention that it represents a "drastic expansion" of current law is utterly baseless.