(FORUM) Did Jan. 6 ‘trespassers’ have the right to be in the US Capitol?


The following is commentary intended for discussion. Add your comments.

I haven’t seen this widely reported but did you know that in general, American citizens have the right to enter the US Capitol anytime the House or Senate is in session to observe? Even on Jan. 6, 2021. Especially on Jan. 6, 2021.

In an emergency or crisis, police certainly have the right to impose restrictions. But in instances when the restrictions aren’t clear, or the police aren’t stopping people from entering, it wouldn’t seem to constitute trespassing, which is the only thing most people were really charged with.

Thoughts?

Visit The Sharyl Attkisson Store today

Shop Now

Unique gifts for independent thinkers

Proceeds benefit independent journalism


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

14 thoughts on “(FORUM) Did Jan. 6 ‘trespassers’ have the right to be in the US Capitol?”

  1. I have always thought that charging the peaceful sightseers that walked around the capitol were innocent of any crime.
    Charging those that committed assaults, vandalized or stole should be charged for the same crimes and with the same severity those that happen elsewhere.
    The capitol police officer that killed Ashley Babbet should be tried for murder.
    The fact that not one of those entering the capitol brought a gun should tell us everything. about their intent.
    Bending statutes to charge political opponents has become a tool for federal law enforcement. Everyone knows this is wrong and if it continues we will cease to be the the country 98% of us love.

  2. The very essence of self-governance in our constitutional republic is the ability of the citizens to observe and participate in the decision making process conducted by our elected servant leaders. Any restrictions on or secrecy that is imposed upon this process can be become destructive of our right to govern ourselves, and the January 2021 policy change seems, in retrospect, an insidious attempt to limit the opportunities for the average citizen to peacefully participate.

  3. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Pelosi led Democratic Congress burned the transcripts of their so-called inquiry (it was really a witch-hunt and the others of her coven) for this reason.
    Someone spotted that Americans had the right to visit the Capital-even during sessions. Once this custom was viewed by the Jan 6th Commission, the transcripts were cinderized so that the Americans who paid taxes that funded this travesty couldn’t complain about the waste of tax moneys.
    Since the transcripts were burned, no one could show how needlessly and foolishly the money was spent.

  4. On the one end of the building were regular visitors who were welcomed in by the guards. Then were arrested as they made their way in the middle of the building. There;s video showing them being left in. They should have their cases dropped.

  5. I’ll start. First Amendment:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    Supreme Court in 18761 in United States v. Cruikshank:
    “The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances.”

    “Today the right of peaceable assembly is, in the language of the Court, cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental.6 Broadly, the Court has said that the government may not proscribe peaceable assembly for lawful discussion, and even though participants may have committed crimes elsewhere, . . . . mere participation in a peaceable assembly and a lawful public discussion may not provide the basis for a criminal charge absent evidence that their speech transcend[ed] the bounds of the freedom of speech which the Constitution protects.” (U.S. at 365.)

  6. I’ll start. First Amendment:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    Supreme Court in 18761 in United States v. Cruikshank:
    “The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances.”

    “Today the right of peaceable assembly is, in the language of the Court, cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental.6 Broadly, the Court has said that the government may not proscribe peaceable assembly for lawful discussion, and even though participants may have committed crimes elsewhere, . . . . mere participation in a peaceable assembly and a lawful public discussion may not provide the basis for a criminal charge absent evidence that their speech transcend[ed] the bounds of the freedom of speech which the Constitution protects.” (U.S. at 365.)

  7. When police open the doors for you dies that not imply that you have a right to be there? How could you then be charged with trespassing?

  8. It doesn’t matter what the rules, regulations and laws are, when the entire governmental structure is corrupted and is completely biased against anything which is right, good, honest, or wholesome.

Scroll to Top