You are no less free listening to loud music and you are making somebody less free by outlawing it, bad law.
IMO Ever been driving on a beautiful day with your truck window open and pulled up next to one of those cars with the incredible bass speakers thumping or a truck with a 6 inch megaphone exhaust blasting away so you had to roll your window up? Who is infringing on whose rights? It is all in the eyes of the the individual.
You wouldn't be on your property then. You would be "in" your property.
What does your gut say? Does it really say let's play this exactly by the letter of the law, or does it say I recognize the similarity and it has merit? Do I rest my case on the use of a preposition, or do I read between the lines and pursue the intent?
This is exactly what I was referring to yesterday. Literal interpretation, rather than intuitive reasoning. In my opinion, this is one big reason we have so many laws, and paperwork needed to define and explain those laws. We all know what the intent is (was), but we choose to look for the loopholes in order to twist the thing into favoring "our" side, rather than simply recognizing and acknowledging the intent.
It should be simple. But it requires much time and expense to clarify, define, and explain. Just because we don't want to admit that we understand, but do not like, what the law means.
What the laws says is exactly what the law says. The "spirit of the law" will win a few court cases but laws should be written to mean exactly what they say. Playing loud music in ones car while on public road ways (one of the few things the federal government actually can limit on federal roads by the Constitution) is legal to be restricted by the law, including State law. Nobody will have their freedoms restricted by the law when driving on a public road and not being able to play loud music because that person is not ON their personal property, they are IN their property and ON public property.
Laws should be written to mean what they say and have NO room for "interpretation". Per Jefferson, "Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." The law means what it says!
The EPA is Un Constitutional, the regulations they intend for our ponds are Un Constitutional. You sprkplg would have men be ruled by regulations which cannot and are not allowed to exist because you don't think these laws will affect you? Because you think it is needed and perhaps a vacuum exists to be filled? Let the States handle this, as States are supposed to, and let the federal government worry about ISIL and postal roads.
I just got a new pond, I made it twice because I aint so bright.
