Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

limpyhobbler

(8,244 posts)

4. That's really cool.

Reply to rsmith6621 (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 01:53 AM

Mar 2012

Is your group asking the members of Congress to give their personal interpretation of what the law does?

Or are you petitioning them to pass another bill to clarify the language?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

16 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What do you think of this article about HR 347 (Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds etc...) ? [View all] limpyhobbler Mar 2012 OP

Not to mention rsmith6621 Mar 2012 #1

That's really cool. limpyhobbler Mar 2012 #4

Not unless you want to evacuate the city. jeff47 Mar 2012 #6

He fails with this sentence: jeff47 Mar 2012 #2

Hi. Could you please quote the part of H.R. 137 law that requires a clear demarcation? Luminous Animal Mar 2012 #3

Hrm...this giant fence around the White House. I'll just hop on over and start picking flowers jeff47 Mar 2012 #5

or otherwise restricted area. So no, it does not need to a clearly demarcated area. Luminous Animal Mar 2012 #13

According to the Justice Department, it does. jeff47 Mar 2012 #16

If I understand you correctly, limpyhobbler Mar 2012 #8

In an area restricted by this law, yes. jeff47 Mar 2012 #9

What is an "otherwise restricted area"? limpyhobbler Mar 2012 #10

It's a generic catch-all so they don't have to list all the ways to do it. jeff47 Mar 2012 #12

Do you know whether this law only applies to areas restricted by the Secret Service? limpyhobbler Mar 2012 #14

It requires the Secret Service jeff47 Mar 2012 #15

it's unconstitutional, of course Warpy Mar 2012 #7

You might be interested in this analysis jeff47 Mar 2012 #11