SB 115, the GATE CRASHERS Act, would create a new federal criminal offense for unauthorized entry onto property under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense when that property has been clearly marked as closed or restricted. The bill adds a new section to title 18 of the U.S. Code and makes it unlawful, within U.S. jurisdiction, to go onto such DoD property without authorization.
The bill establishes escalating penalties for repeat violations. A first offense could be punished by a fine, up to 180 days in prison, or both; a second offense could bring up to 3 years in prison; and a third or subsequent offense could result in up to 10 years in prison. It also makes a conforming amendment to the table of sections in chapter 67 of title 18.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would expand federal criminal law by creating a specific trespass-related offense for restricted Department of Defense facilities and properties. It would give federal prosecutors a new tool to charge unauthorized access to clearly marked closed or restricted military sites, and it would apply to individuals who repeatedly violate those restrictions. The measure would affect DoD facility security enforcement and could increase criminal exposure for protesters, trespassers, or others entering restricted military property without permission.
Sentiment
The available context shows limited formal debate: the bill was introduced by Senator Cruz with several Republican cosponsors and then referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material, so there is no documented bipartisan support or opposition in the record here. Based on the bill’s sponsors and framing, the measure appears to be presented as a security and deterrence bill rather than a controversial policy overhaul, but the absence of hearings or votes means broader sentiment cannot be assessed from the provided context.
Contention
The main point of contention likely concerns whether existing trespass, security, and military-protection laws are already sufficient or whether a new, harsher federal offense is needed. Supporters would likely emphasize protecting sensitive Defense Department property and deterring repeat intrusions, while critics could argue the bill risks overcriminalization or disproportionate penalties for unauthorized entry, especially in protest or civil disobedience contexts. No specific objections or endorsements are recorded in the provided transcripts or votes.