http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/restricted.aspDepends on your view of the changes the bill put in place, per snopes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Special_Security_EventI point to this merely to indicate the creation of NSSE's - May 1998.
I definitely believe that the US government has become "big brother" and see's no issue with removing individual rights for the sake of the government security. I also would find it plausible that "old" good intentions have been replaced with current abuse. But I don't see that as a dem or repug thing... both parties enjoy adding to the power of the federal government by diminishing the rights of the people. On the flip side.. had such measure been place... could Kennedy have been spared?
Note that by looking at the creation of NSSE and then looking at Bill 347... we see a manifestation of the "slippery slope".. that many like me fear and loath. NSSE in and of itself is not a bad thing. Bill 347 in and of itself is not a bad thing.. but combine them and abuse them... and well that can be a very bad thing.
As for me, I don't think Bill 347 needs fixing or repealing.. instead NSSE needs some rules applied:
DHS must get approval for creation of an NSSE from the local government.
NSSE areas must be pre-defined and limited in scope in writing with the local government
The local government should be able to:
a) either refuse the NSSE designation or
b) refuse event or
c) refuse that the event be covered by any media.. ie complete media blackout.
That last one is for sporting events and conventions .. either its open and public or its closed and no one will ever see. What it should not be is a government controlled media (propaganda) event.
Further NSSE events must have the extra expense paid for by the holder of the event. So if the super bowl is going to be NSSE.. then those that profit from the event .. can pay for the added government expense of it being NSSE. And especially party conventions!
Anyway that's how dictator Pine would handle it....