Please describe why it's a fallacy. I'm very interested in why you think the circumstances of both do not have similar underlying principles. If you can't explain how they differ, I'd say it's pretty good logic.
IF: A illustrates a case where the principle of freedom trumps the desire to live with no violators of a law,
and IF: B illustrates where the principle of freedom trumps the desire to live with no violators of a law,
THEN A and B are similar in principle.
Additionally,
IF: there are laws against a particular undesirable behavior which are not being enforced,
and IF: the legislative branch is approaching the problem by passing more laws,
THEN: it follows that those violating the original laws will also violate the new laws.
Moreover:
IF: a person says they advocate said new laws for the reason of curbing only the illegal behavior,
and IF: there is already existing law which makes the stated illegal behavior illegal,
and IF: the new laws, in actuality, address other behaviors than those stated to be already illegal, effectively converting legal behaviors into illegal behaviors,
and IF: the person still advocates the new law anyway, despite the plain facts presented to them,
THEN: the person likely actually advocated the new restrictions converting legal behavior into illegal behavior, and likely advocated something other than that which they were willing to state.
Now, there's logic for you. Where's the fallacy?