Pistol brace ban: Who's the maker and what happens to the ones in dealer inventory

[Bret]

Cast aside for the moment that the ATF said they're legal, now claims they're not, the associated court battles, the strong likelihood that the efile system couldn't handle the demand and the fact that 95%+ of those with these pistols couldn't get it filed correctly anyway. Who is the maker? If one purchased a braced pistol, didn't do anything to change the configuration and the ATF claims that they have to be registered because they were SBR's all along, how can the individual who purchased it be considered the maker? Wouldn't the maker be the manufacturer? Wouldn't declaring oneself the maker be akin to self incrimination? Is there a special form for this? I tried logging in to eforms, but it now says that my password is invalid. Another question I have is what happens to all of the braced pistols in dealer inventory at the end of the 120 day period?

[Inkslinger]

Seems to me, the “maker” of all these new SBR’s is the ATF. I wonder what would happen if you used that on the form?

[Alex V]

Cast aside for the moment that the ATF said they're legal, now claims they're not, the associated court battles, the strong likelihood that the efile system couldn't handle the demand and the fact that 95%+ of those with these pistols couldn't get it filed correctly anyway. Who is the maker? If one purchased a braced pistol, didn't do anything to change the configuration and the ATF claims that they have to be registered because they were SBR's all along, how can the individual who purchased it be considered the maker? Wouldn't the maker be the manufacturer? Wouldn't declaring oneself the maker be akin to self incrimination? Is there a special form for this? I tried logging in to eforms, but it now says that my password is invalid. Another question I have is what happens to all of the braced pistols in dealer inventory at the end of the 120 day period?

According to the FAQs screenshot in the thread on the General Discusion forum, the makes is the manufacturer, using the manufacturer's information, and these are filed on a Form2, not a Form1 like an SBR.

I would assume dealers have to do millions of Form2s as well, then when you buy it, since it's an SBR now, it goes on a Form3 to the dealer and Form4 to you. So now buying a pistol takes a year like a silencer, of you make your own, Form1 + $200

Who the hell knows, the whole point is to make it as hard as possible

[Bret]

I was able to login to eforms. There is a new tax exemption on a Form 1, but apparently it's a special Form 1 for registration where someone else is the "maker". It appears that submitters are not required to engrave their information.
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...qapdf/download

Below are two important FAQ's.
15. WHAT DO I PUT IN SECTION 4H, ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION WHICH ASKS FOR THE REQUIRED
MAKER’S MARKINGS, TO INCLUDE MAKER’S NAME AS REGISTERED, CITY AND STATE AS EACH
WILL APPEAR ON FIREARM?
Answer: Enter the name of the original manufacturer or importer, city, and State as marked on
the frame or receiver of the firearm. If the firearm was made by a non-licensee and has no
markings (e.g., a privately made firearm), then enter the applicant’s name, city, and State from
Section 3b.

18. HOW MUST A FIREARM THAT IS REGISTERED PURSUANT TO FINAL RULE 2021R-08F BE MARKED?
Answer: A firearm that is not marked, such as a privately made firearm (PMF), must be marked in
accordance with the maker marking requirements under 27 CFR 479.102(a) before submission of the
eForm1.
However, if the firearm is already marked, the person registering the firearm pursuant to Final
Rule 2021R-08F may adopt all of the original manufacturer or importer markings when registering
the
firearm, to include the name, city, and state of the original manufacturer or importer as identified on
the frame or receiver of the firearm.

[markm]

This is all Southpark levels of fukking retardation.

[john armond]

This is all Southpark levels of fukking retardation.

So, my UZI, Colt, or HK pistol now becomes a "factory" SBR according to the ATF?

I can't wait for the confusion when a gun someone bought as a "pistol" with a brace from an FFL, and is now a registered "SBR" (after the paperwork of course), is stolen and/or used in a crime.

Even better is someone bought a pistol with brace from an FFL and sold it to someone else as is before any of this crap started. Now the new owner, who doesn't know about the new law, gets busted for something or uses the braced pistol in a SD shooting. Is the new owner going to be charged with owning an "unregistered SBR" AND the original owner and FFL charged with selling said "unregistered SBR?"

More like South Park and Squidbillies combined.

[Bret]

So, my UZI, Colt, or HK pistol now becomes a "factory" SBR according to the ATF?

Oddly enough, I think you're spot on with this. My guess is that these amnesty registered factory SBR's will ultimately be more desirable than Form 1 SBR's, but less desirable than actual factory SBR's. Of course, some guns were never available as factory SBR's, so perhaps these will be more desirable.

[john armond]

Oddly enough, I think you're spot on with this. My guess is that these amnesty registered factory SBR's will ultimately be more desirable than Form 1 SBR's, but less desirable than actual factory SBR's. Of course, some guns were never available as factory SBR's, so perhaps these will be more desirable.

As much as I hate to say it, I am really tempted to SBR my braced UZI pistol now just to have a "factory" UZI SBR. It sickens my stomach even thinking about doing this.

[Bret]

I have three braced pistols that were not available as factory SBR's. As perverse as it might sound, this might be the only opportunity to get such factory SBR's. Perhaps some will register them and then this whole thing might get shot down. That would be ironic.

[themonk]

This is all Southpark levels of fukking retardation.

I agree with this. They have no idea what they are doing.