To punish an offender, their must first be a definition of the offense. This is what is called a law. They are made by the legislature and approved by the executive. Among other things they define acts that are proscribed.
Prior restraint is when an a party is prevented from a legal action because it may lead to an illegal action.
Laws protecting private property rights are not prior restraint, they actually define what the illegal act is and the penalty for violating it.
Speed limit laws are not prior restraint. They define what the illegal act is and the penalty for violating it.
Licensing laws as applied to right of ways controlled by the government are not prior restraint. They establish what the illegal act is and what the penalty for violating it is.
If the government were to deny you the right to drive on your private property on the basis that you might leave your property and drive on a government right of way or another person’s private property, that would be prior restraint.
If the legislature were to ever have the power to legislate over God, they could then pass a law defining the generation of lightning as an illegal act and the penalty for violating it. I don’t think that is going to happen.
The essence of law is not that you punish someone because of what MIGHT happen, you punish them because of what DID happen.
The numbers of circumstances where a person might be injured, or property damaged, is almost infinitely long.
Some of the guys back then knew how to write. And they MEANT what they said. The role of government was to protect the PURSUIT of happiness. Not the GUARANTEE of happiness. Government has ZERO authority to try to decide what will make us happen and then implement rules to bring that about.
When it tries to do that, it is no longer protecting our liberties. It is REGULATING us.
In almost all jurisdictions (common law states) a crime has two factors: an illegal act occurred and THERE WAS ACTUAL DAMAGE OR INJURY (injury in fact, not possible injury).