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.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1) And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1) Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT? PB answer: It depends.
