Gun Price Trends

[maee]

As it has been reported recently all over the media, gun prices are up and store shelves are bare. My question is, how long do you expect this to last? I think it is safe to say that we won't see another AWB for at least a year, probably more like 2 or more. For those of us living in MA/NY/CA/NJ/CT/HI, this isn't probably going to even effect things much, unless they get their dream ban through: HR 1022.

As for scary things like child-proof handguns and ammo bans or massive tax increases, these are pretty unlikely at this point.

So do you think the post-election Obama hysteria is going to die down after he takes office at the end of January, or do you think its basically going to continue like this for now on until the next AWB, at which point things really get scarce?

My guess is that the hysteria continues until January 20, at which point people's credit cards are maxed out, 401ks are depleted and reality sets in that Obama isn't going to get his dream legislation overnight. Demand won't go below what it was a month ago simply because the bad economy also drives self-defense weapon purchases, but at some point, people are going to run out of money for $2,000 assault rifles that, lets face it, are more like a Corvette than practical tool.

 

[theGringo]

I'll go out on a limb, here, and predict that demand for AK and AR pattern rifles and large capacity magazines will remain high for the next six months, resulting in continuing scarcity and higher prices.

If a renewed AWB appears on the horizon during that time, the situation will continue indefinitely ... until the new AWB is passed. At that time, there will be mad panic.

 

[Skald]

There will be no new AWB given the current makeup of SCOTUS, where 5 Justices signed off that ANY outright ban on a weapon is Unconstitutional, and given who is slated to retire first, its just a wash as one liberal steps down, another steps in.

What we really need to do is watch for huge tax hikes etc.

 

[Raoul Duke]

At the risk of being repetitive, here’s my forecast for the coming year.

January 2009: Obama takes office, takes no immediate action on firearms laws, instead addressing the myriad fiscal, military and political situations (read emergencies) around the world. However, prices of firearms and ammo, having dropped in December and January (as holiday shopping and events take precedence over firearms expenditures and credit card bills come due) now skyrocket as people remember that Obama is now the President.

June 2009: Prices begin to mitigate as demand drops dramatically from its election fervor highs. Because manufacturers have not increased production, (knowing it was a temporary flare), availability drops and prices rise accordingly. Continuing and dramatic fiscal instability, widespread unemployment and increasing gridlock in the credit markets begin to put the small-scale producers out of business, despite they purchase fever, (along with lots of manufactures or non-firearms related items) when they cannot get credit to buy supplies. Meanwhile larger companies continue to celebrate a record past year but harbor concerns over the effect of a military drawdown in Iraq.

November 2009: wrapping up a year of record fiscal disaster, prices for Firearms begin to recede further (lower than they were a month ago pre-Obama terror). Consumers have filled their safes and lost their jobs. Discretionary income is almost completely nonexistent now. Ammo prices begin a precipitous fall as commodity prices (currently low) begin to work their way into the price calculations. The end of the war leaves manufactures with plenty of excess capacity and firearms are still not yet banned but demand is through the floor for ammo. 3/5 people reading this right now and thinking “yeah, that’s when I am buying” will have experienced some measure of fiscal instability that prevents them from taking advantage of the lower prices with the enthusiasm they currently presuppose.

Endgame

a. Obama institutes some noxious new policies (bans restrictions etc) and prices skyrocket and all bets above are off.
b. Obama remains focused on the larger issues and prices level off as the economy improves (roughly 2750 A.D.)

 

[theGringo]

There will be no new AWB given the current makeup of SCOTUS, where 5 Justices signed off that ANY outright ban on a weapon is Unconstitutional, and given who is slated to retire first, its just a wash as one liberal steps down, another steps in.

An AWB is not an outright ban. It is a restriction on the ownership of a specific class of firearms. It will pass constitutional muster under Heller, as things currently stand.

Under Obama, we may not expect any future rulings on RKBA to be favorable to our cause.

 

[Skald]

An AWB is not an outright ban. It is a restriction on the ownership of a specific class of firearms. It will pass constitutional muster under Heller, as things currently stand.

Under Obama, we may not expect any future rulings on RKBA to be favorable to our cause.

This is not meant to be personal or quippish, but how is an AWB not a ban? Obama wants to ban handguns/military looking rifles from private ownership. So telling people they can not own such a weapon IS a ban.

From the shellacking the Dems got after AWB I, do you really think they will be stupid enough to try it again? Especially with the buying going on now? Moonbats maybe crazy, but they are not dumb. Many Dems who won in 2006 campaigned on either Pro-2A or 2A Neutral. These guys vote for ANY AWB and odds are they will be tossed out. After AWB I I think the Dems realized that any form of Gun Control on the federal level is sure fire way to lose seats next cycle. Prior to AWB I the Democrats controlled BOTH houses of Congress for 40 years, then over 1 issue they lose it (as attributed by the man who signed it into law). They finally get back control, you think they are going to risk it again?

 

[jar]

An AWB is not an outright ban. It is a restriction on the ownership of a specific class of firearms. It will pass constitutional muster under Heller, as things currently stand.

Under Obama, we may not expect any future rulings on RKBA to be favorable to our cause.

The previous AWB maybe, though I still think it's a stretch. HR1022, no way.

"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly
chosen by American society for that lawful purpose."

I think you could easily replace 'The handgun ban' with 'HR1022'.

 

[Skald]

We are definitely living in interesting times.

 

[Rob]

They finally get back control, you think they are going to risk it again?

I love your post. However, yeah I think they will definitely risk it again. The stage is set for a major gun grab/ban with the tentative appointment of major gun hater Eric Holder.

Interesting times indeed.

 

[mikem317]

I love your post. However, yeah I think they will definitely risk it again. The stage is set for a major gun grab/ban with the tentative appointment of major gun hater Eric Holder.

Interesting times indeed.

Look at how Dear Leader's cabinet looks right now... Especially Rahm Emmanuel.

* Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
* Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
* Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology. (Aug 2000)
* Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)

Source: ontheissues.org

I still can't wrap my head around the fact that a Jew can possibly be against private gun ownership.

 

[calsdad]

As it has been reported recently all over the media, gun prices are up and store shelves are bare. My question is, how long do you expect this to last? I think it is safe to say that we won't see another AWB for at least a year, probably more like 2 or more. For those of us living in MA/NY/CA/NJ/CT/HI, this isn't probably going to even effect things much, unless they get their dream ban through: HR 1022.

As for scary things like child-proof handguns and ammo bans or massive tax increases, these are pretty unlikely at this point.

So do you think the post-election Obama hysteria is going to die down after he takes office at the end of January, or do you think its basically going to continue like this for now on until the next AWB, at which point things really get scarce?

My guess is that the hysteria continues until January 20, at which point people's credit cards are maxed out, 401ks are depleted and reality sets in that Obama isn't going to get his dream legislation overnight. Demand won't go below what it was a month ago simply because the bad economy also drives self-defense weapon purchases, but at some point, people are going to run out of money for $2,000 assault rifles that, lets face it, are more like a Corvette than practical tool.

I bet it will last for a while. The people who started the surge probably didn't get everything they wanted. License applications are thru the roof - I heard thru a friend that one North Shore town got 38 applications in the week and a half just before and after the election. This is normally an entire years worth for them. These people will be buying something once they get their permits. The buying frenzy would have continued if the shelves hadn't gotten emptied. So the demand is still there. Combine all of that with job loss, Christmas and Thanksgiving coming up (people spending money on other things) - etc., and I think there is still demand there.

Try explaining to your wife why you want to spend $1200 on an AR with Christmas coming up and job loss looming. Now wait until late January or February and make the pitch again after all that is over and done with - and Obama gets in and starts making lots of noise about doing things, and the economy gets worse , and crime goes up, etc. etc.

The boom might continue for a while.

Plus as more people buy stuff - there is a side effect of friends seeing friends buying stuff, so they feel like they have to join in.

And Obama will just need to make one little move towards firearms legislation of ANY form to add gasoline to the fire.

And just for the record: a Corvette is a practical tool. It just depends what sort of job you are trying to accomplish. Trying to haul a stack of plywood back from Home Depot, not so much. Trying to get from point A to point B in the fastest possible way over surface roads - a practical tool. A $2000 black rifle is an eminently practical tool - again it depends on the job you are trying to accomplish.

 

[mikem317]

There might be a bubble depending on how market suppliers react to the recent surge in gun and ammo sales. If inventory builds too quickly, I'm sure they'll be a bust, but probably not until late 2Q09.

 

[maee]

Look at how Dear Leader's cabinet looks right now... Especially Rahm Emmanuel.

I still can't wrap my head around the fact that a Jew can possibly be against private gun ownership.

Who needs private gun ownership when you have a personal secret service team at your disposal??

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

An AWB is not an outright ban. It is a restriction on the ownership of a specific class of firearms. It will pass constitutional muster under Heller, as things currently stand.

Under Obama, we may not expect any future rulings on RKBA to be favorable to our cause.

UM... This is what Heller prevented, was it not?

Couple of thoughts here:

DC vs. Heller has effectively made bans such as the 1994 AWB unconstitutional, as a new AWB would ban firearms "in common use" and would be seen as an unreasonable restriction. One reason the 1994 ban passed was due to the fact that there was no clear definition of the Second Amendment. Now that Heller vs. DC has defined the Second Amendment as an individual right, sweeping bans will be much more difficult to pass at the federal level.

The real deal is "common use". How many people are NOW gun toting EBR owners? I am sure it does not compare to pistol ownership, but a outright ban would disenfranchise a WHOLE lot of people...

NO way is this going to pass...

 

[mikem317]

NO way is this going to pass...

Don't rest on your laurels.

Remember, Heller hasn't been incorporated. It only guarantees that an individual can have a firearm in a home, in a federal district. And Heller wasn't the watershed moment that it's made out to be on the boards. There's the whole "reasonableness" nonsense.

What's "reasonable" for the government might be different than your idea of what's "reasonable".

 

[Skald]

Don't rest on your laurels.

Remember, Heller hasn't been incorporated. It only guarantees that an individual can have a firearm in a home, in a federal district. And Heller wasn't the watershed moment that it's made out to be on the boards. There's the whole "reasonableness" nonsense.

What's "reasonable" for the government might be different than your idea of what's "reasonable".

Here is where people keep getting mixed up about Heller. Yes it does address gun ownership in a federal district, but ALSO defines the 2nd Amendment in our favor. Heller is important because it is now precedent in OUR favor, not the anti's. What Heller ALSO addresses is as illegal. Right now lawyers have actual legal precedent to cite and argue in front of judges and such.

Is it the end all be all case we wanted? Nope, but what it does do is start defining the 2nd Amendment in OUR favor, not the anti's.

 

[Knob Creek]

Maybe if we join the Obama Civilian Security force we'll be allowed to keep them.

 

[jcr]

The AWB94 was insidious. Several things about it made challenges then and even now under Heller.

It was a partial manufacturing ban. Companies could make any gun they wanted, but they couldn't sell some of them to just anybody. They could make semi-autos, just not some semi-autos with features to sell to the public.

To get legal standing to challange the law required an unlikely set of circumstances. A test case could have been worked up, but the players for such a case risk a lot.

The AR pattern makes it easy for a company to make a banned gun easily without tooling expense. But they'd need a dealer/distributor to be willing to play. Then you have to find a person to buy it and be charged with a felony. When charged with felonies, the maker/dealer/buyer lives and businesses are seriously disrupted.

If these risks aren't intenionally taken, you don't have standing and you can't challenge the law. And if you do get into court, there are no guarentees of winning. Weaselly judges could easily say that "you could buy a different semi-auto rifle" so this is not a full ban and your rights aren't infringed. And then you do time, and are a felon.

As far as Obama being too distracted with other things, I don't think it holds up. He won't have to expend near as much a Clinton did. His minions in Congress are more than willing to carry the water for him -- all he'll have to do is sign the bill into law. Yes, there are gun-rights Dems in Congress, but I'm not confident that they'll stand up to their leadership. Moreover we know that there are Republicans who will join them -- Snowe and Collins in particular, seem unlikely to vote to uphold a filibuster.

Yes, it was a disaster for the Ds in '94, but it'll be spun differently by the media this time. You'll get tired of hearing "Both Bush and McCain said that they would support it." A nasty VATech-like event is all they need to kick start it.

Also, I'm not feeling optimistic about the future of any private sales. Unless we could get a court ruling before the law (ha!) that says the FFLs can't charge for the background check and transaction (because it burdens a right), dealers won't be on our side in this.

 

[EC1]

Who needs private gun ownership when you have a personal secret service team at your disposal??

Which now only lasts till the day you're out of office. Thanks Bill.

 

[calsdad]

The AWB94 was insidious. Several things about it made challenges then and even now under Heller.

It was a partial manufacturing ban. Companies could make any gun they wanted, but they couldn't sell some of them to just anybody. They could make semi-autos, just not some semi-autos with features to sell to the public.

To get legal standing to challange the law required an unlikely set of circumstances. A test case could have been worked up, but the players for such a case risk a lot.

The AR pattern makes it easy for a company to make a banned gun easily without tooling expense. But they'd need a dealer/distributor to be willing to play. Then you have to find a person to buy it and be charged with a felony. When charged with felonies, the maker/dealer/buyer lives and businesses are seriously disrupted.

If these risks aren't intenionally taken, you don't have standing and you can't challenge the law. And if you do get into court, there are no guarentees of winning. Weaselly judges could easily say that "you could buy a different semi-auto rifle" so this is not a full ban and your rights aren't infringed. And then you do time, and are a felon.

As far as Obama being too distracted with other things, I don't think it holds up. He won't have to expend near as much a Clinton did. His minions in Congress are more than willing to carry the water for him -- all he'll have to do is sign the bill into law. Yes, there are gun-rights Dems in Congress, but I'm not confident that they'll stand up to their leadership. Moreover we know that there are Republicans who will join them -- Snowe and Collins in particular, seem unlikely to vote to uphold a filibuster.

Yes, it was a disaster for the Ds in '94, but it'll be spun differently by the media this time. You'll get tired of hearing "Both Bush and McCain said that they would support it." A nasty VATech-like event is all they need to kick start it.

Also, I'm not feeling optimistic about the future of any private sales. Unless we could get a court ruling before the law (ha!) that says the FFLs can't charge for the background check and transaction (because it burdens a right), dealers won't be on our side in this.

The other thing to bear in mind is that with the economy imploding - and Obama promising the moon and stars to all the moonbats who supported him. He will likely be getting hit from all sides to fix problems that unsolvable by the govt. - but people will want results from him. When he doesn't produce results - he will be looking for a "win" to make him look better.

Anti- gun legislation could get passed by the sheer political pressure to do "something" to address an issue that so many moonbats believe is major issue that needs to get solved. We have heard all the propaganda about how it is a "new day" in America. The politicians have already demonstrated that they do not care about the opinions of the citizens of this country when they voted for the bailout bill. Combine all of this and the political dynamic is different now than it was in the 90's.

All it will take is one good incident - and a huge outcry from the loony left, to generate enough situational political pressure to pass anti gun legislation. The representatives who previously would not have done it because of their fear of getting re-elected - will respond to threats of martial law or pulling back of economic help from the feds , by voting for anti gun legislation. Republicans voted for the last AWB. Democrats who claim to be pro-gun now will toe the line if presented with the correct mix of threats and incentives the next time around.

Some of the postings here on NES - and stories I have heard elsewhere, point out that many people who voted for Obama are now out panic buying guns. Tell me that doesn't show a disconnect between what voters think will happen and who they will still vote for.

Logic and clear thinking have lost their relationship to how people will vote. Anything is now possible.

 

[calsdad]

Here is where people keep getting mixed up about Heller. Yes it does address gun ownership in a federal district, but ALSO defines the 2nd Amendment in our favor. Heller is important because it is now precedent in OUR favor, not the anti's. What Heller ALSO addresses is as illegal. Right now lawyers have actual legal precedent to cite and argue in front of judges and such.

Is it the end all be all case we wanted? Nope, but what it does do is start defining the 2nd Amendment in OUR favor, not the anti's.

The federal govt. has been violating the spirit of, if not the letter of the Constitution at will for quite some time. I would not put all my hopes for salvation in the Heller decision. Obama believes that the Constitution is a "living document". They will try to interpret the Heller case to suit their goals. Once they do that there must be somebody there to stop them. Which would probably mean pushing another case up to the Supreme Court if they really pushed the limits on the legislation. If Obama gets to replace even one justice in SCOTUS - that throws any future decision into jeopardy as far as it coming down on the side of defending firearms ownership.

 

[theGringo]

All it will take is one good incident - and a huge outcry from the loony left, to generate enough situational political pressure to pass anti gun legislation. The representatives who previously would not have done it because of their fear of getting re-elected - will respond to threats of martial law or pulling back of economic help from the feds , by voting for anti gun legislation. Republicans voted for the last AWB. Democrats who claim to be pro-gun now will toe the line if presented with the correct mix of threats and incentives the next time around.

From Rahm Emanuel:

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mzcbXi1Tkk

 

[calsdad]

From Rahm Emanuel:

Thanks for the proof.

 

[FalArAk]

Which now only lasts till the day you're out of office. Thanks Bill.

I thought ALL living ex presidents and families get SS for life..or did I misunderstand you ?

 

[mikem317]

Here is where people keep getting mixed up about Heller. Yes it does address gun ownership in a federal district, but ALSO defines the 2nd Amendment in our favor. Heller is important because it is now precedent in OUR favor, not the anti's. What Heller ALSO addresses is as illegal. Right now lawyers have actual legal precedent to cite and argue in front of judges and such.

Is it the end all be all case we wanted? Nope, but what it does do is start defining the 2nd Amendment in OUR favor, not the anti's.

But...

However, "[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The Court's opinion, although refraining from an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the right, "should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

 

[Raoul Duke]

I thought ALL living ex presidents and families get SS for life..or did I misunderstand you ?

Social Security?








Ohhhh.......Secret Service.







If there is a God; if there is such a thing as Karma....The first people to die in the opening salvos of the revolution should be those who restrict Second Amendment rights from behind contrived the safety of the secret service.

R. Duke 2008

 

[June4th]

I can never have enough guns that I like, but I do have more than I need. My income remains steady but I don't think now is the time to indulge my desire for a nice $2,500 rifle, especially my savings/investments went down half of their value in the last two months.

Cash (or maybe gold) is king when time is tough. I'm in hunker-down mode financially for the time being, bitterly holding on to my guns, religion and cash...

 

[Len-2A Training]

I thought ALL living ex presidents and families get SS for life..or did I misunderstand you ?

They used to. However I read that the law was changed to give them protection for only x years after serving. I think "x" = 10 years, but am not certain of that number.

 

[toga]

I thought ALL living ex presidents and families get SS for life..or did I misunderstand you ?

The question was if Rahm Emanuel would have SS covering his butt.

 

[firecontrol123]

Can someone please tell me why they believe the Heller decision will make any difference at all. When the feds gave up their right to control firearms to the states everything changed. What I mean by that is the 2nd amendment lost it's meaning at that point. One state says you can own and carry a firearm and another says you can't. I hope no one honestly believes that people will be carrying guns in D.C. According to many of the state laws there is a big difference between owning a gun and carrying one. Here in Massachusetts our local police chief gets to decide who will own and carry a gun. The 2nd amendment means nothing here and neither does the Heller decision.