by I found this on MeWe posted by a friend.
Reinterpreting regulations in such a way as to make possession of an item a felony is the modus operandi of the BATFE. They did it with bump stocks and they are doing it now with pistol braces.
It is now up to the courts to push back on this. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals did it with Cargill v. Garland. There are now at least four cases before US District Courts challenging the BATFE on their new pistol brace rule. Fingers crossed that the judges will do the right thing.
They did it on the Street Sweeper style shotguns, too. Mid ‘90s
I thought that pesky old constitution they’re supposed to follow said there can be no such thing as ex post facto laws. That would make it unconstitutional to say a perfectly legal thing you bought years ago can’t be made illegal now. The most they could do is bar future sales.
Yeah, I know. That’s just a bunch of carp some white men wrote (in cursive!) that’s full of all sorts of meaningless homilies. Nobody follows that “constitution” thing anyway.
Ex poste facto means that they can’t find you guilty of a crime that wasn’t illegal when you did it. It doesn’t mean that they can’t ban things and prohibit you from future ownership. No one, afaik, is suggesting that you should be put in jail if you used to own a brace.
I’d say that a better example of actual ex poste facto was taking away gun rights for misdemeanor violence convictions years in the past. Changing the punishment retroactively for something you’ve already been convicted of and fulfilled your sentence.
I am not a lawyer however.