Likewise the perfect is the enemy of the good. Having an idea of what a perfect regulation would be means that you end up arguing against helpful regulations because they don't meet your standards for "good idea".
Your point isn't incorrect, but it's at best misplaced and mistimed. You should have been yelling about this when the law was being written, not now that it's passed. To those of us who care about the subject, your pedantry is harmful, not helpful.
Fine, but the argument above didn't seem to paint this as a "terrible" law, just a suboptimal one. If you want to argue that it's terrible, feel free. My view is that it achieves a valuable goal with relatively low cost (but not free) and few (but non-zero) inconvenient side effects.
Your point isn't incorrect, but it's at best misplaced and mistimed. You should have been yelling about this when the law was being written, not now that it's passed. To those of us who care about the subject, your pedantry is harmful, not helpful.