Question 1: it is my understanding that there are no limits to laws
that can be passed, and no consequences for passing unconstitutional
or unlawful laws, is this correct?
Question 2: it is my understanding that no law can be challenged
unless and until it is used against you, is this correct?
Question 3: if a law says you something is OK to do "for pleasure",
how does it make any sense for there to be further restrictions? i
mean, can't anything we do be considered for our personal pleasure?
15.35.040 Stationary source emissions--General definitions.
Open burning means the burning of any matter in such manner that the
products of combustion resulting from the burning are emitted directly
into the atmosphere without passing through an approved stack, duct,
vent or chimney but does not refer to the operation of safety flares
for the purpose of protecting human life.
15.35.100 Stationary source emissions--Open burning.
A. Within the boundaries of the municipality no person shall cause,
suffer, permit or allow any open burning except the following unless
otherwise prohibited by law:
BURNING FOR PLEASURE:
1. Open burning for pleasure, religious, ceremonial, cooking or
like social purposes and open burning from flares, torches, waste gas
burners, incense burners and insect pots is allowed.
THE LAW THEN GOES ON TO DESCRIBE ALL THE CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE A
PERMIT FOR "OPEN BURNING" ... I CAN'T MAKE SENSE OF IT BECAUSE IF I
BURN SOME WOOD OR DRY GRASS OR WHATEVER - I CAN ALWAYS CONSIDER IT
BEING DONE FOR MY PLEASURE ??? HOW DO COURTS INTERPRET "PLEASURE"?