On 6/20/2019 9:56 PM, James Cook wrote:
Summary: I can't find any particular reason it's phrased that way.
I can't remember any particular discussion over that phrase either.
I *do* remember that the "limit, allow, enable, or permit" absolutely *was*
assumed to include SHALL NOTs as making things regulated. It was a
simplification of:
A regulated action is an action satisfying any of the following:
a) It is IMPOSSIBLE.
b) It is ILLEGAL.
c) The rules explicitly state that it CAN be performed while
certain conditions are satisfied.
d) The rules explicitly state that it MAY be performed while
certain conditions are satisfied.
e) [recordkeepor clause]
IN CFJ 3403 (shortly after its adoption) Judge omd took it for granted that
something ILLEGAL was regulated:
> the sentence "The Rules SHALL NOT be
> interpreted so as to unregulated actions" is itself an example of an
> action which, by the same rule, "the Rules limit, allow, or permit its
> performance". By this reading, interpreting the rules is a regulated
> action, and "CAN only be performed as described by the rules". This
> includes, most notably, Rule 217 titled "Interpreting the Rules",
> which describes many ways in which interpretation is to be performed.
