it explicitly states in the constitution that ex-post-facto laws are illegal.
how does this sort of rule change work? Seems like the law that empowers the ATF to make these sorts of rulings would itself be illegal because of this.
“it explicitly states in the constitution that ex-post-facto laws are illegal.”
Yup.
All the AW and magazine bans passed over the years are ex post facto laws. Illinois just did it last week. I’m waiting for our useless judicial system to do the right thing.
I think you may be misinterpreting ex post facto in this situation. Laws that reach back in time and make conduct punishable in a way it was not punishable for when it was done are ex post facto laws. That is not the case here. As was discussed in the article, the expectation is that prosecutions will take place for possessing (current tense) an SBR in violation of (future) current law.
It's all a steaming pile, of course. Hopefully a stay will be issued while we wait for it to be struck down.