spectre wrote:Soccerdad1995 wrote:spectre wrote:When they change drug laws to ban additional substances like designer drugs do they include a grandfather clause?
I don't know that the relevant agency has ever specifically opined that a given drug is legal, and then later decided that it is illegal without there being a change in law, so I don't think we have any good precedents here. When things are outlawed, there is frequently a grandfather clause included in the new legislation.
If you're looking for precedent, try the Akins Accelerator.
I agree agencies shouldn't be making laws, or rules/regulations that apply to anybody except employees, but The Black Robes have so far failed to enforce that separation of powers. It would be nice for all of the FDA and EPA rules to vanish in a puff of judicial smoke though.
Just to make sure I understand, are you saying that the ATF affirmatively stated that the Akins Accelerator was in compliance with all laws. And then the same agency later admitted they were mistaken and that the same thing they originally said was legal, was in fact never legal at all, even though there had been no change in the underlying law?
Because that is exactly what the ATF is now saying with this proposed rule. They are admitting that they screwed up on their original interpretation of the law, and are now saying that those who acted in good faith reliance on that mistaken opinion must forfeit the items that they bought. At a minimum, heads should roll at the ATF for costing their employer (the U.S. public) millions of dollars. I know that I would be out of a job really quickly if I cost the shareholders of my company anywhere near that amount of money.
I'm thinking there should be a lawsuit and a stay on enforcement until a judge can figure out whether this regulatory agency will change their legal interpretation yet again.
