Will there be panic buying if an Assault Weapons Ban case is heard by SCOTUS?

I doubt we will see a Federal level ban on the guns in question. There would have to be Democratic control of the Congress and a moral panic among Republican members. That might happen, though, if there was some horror show massacre that dwarfs the current ones.

The worse case would be a ban on all semi-automatic firearms. While some antigunners are stupid about technicalities and blather about the old AWB, many know that if failed and would push for a complete semi ban and a mandatory turn in and confiscation.

In that case, stocking up would be pretty useless. You couldn't sell or gift the guns, no grandfathering. You couldn't use them for competition, hunting or self-defense. The only use would be for 'fat chance' revolution or the apocalypse. Buried stock piles of ARs. Useless for most of us.

Thus, engaging in stockpiling really makes no sense except for 'revolution', 'war' or whatever.

Now, state bans will continue as SCOTUS will do nothing for the short term and probably forever. A legislative solution by Congresss to negate state bans - another fat chance. The supposed gun friendly party has no real interest in such.

Hope this is not to political, not trying to be partisan but analytic.

The rationality of panic buying depends on two assumptions: (a) that there will be a ban, and (b) that existing guns will be grandfathered. Both of these conditions must be present for the bet -- of purchasing guns at inflated prices -- to pay off. As GEM mentioned above, a flat ban with no grandfathering (something that the antigunners will try for, after the experience of the 1994-2004 AWB) would give you two choices: either to turn the guns in or to hide them. In either case the economic value of the guns would be close to zero.

Clearly, a flat ban would raise constitutional issues, both under the 2nd and the 5th Amendments. The way that the Supreme Court resolves these issues could have an effect on whether panic buying would be worthwhile. But we're a long way from getting to that point.

Panick buying at inflated prices would be sorta useless in case of an absolute ban and ordered turn-in.

Precautionary buying at reasonable prices might be useful in case of a freeze on sales, manufacture or import. And maybe in case of an absolute ban on possession and ordered turn-in.

When the ATF decided to treat pre-1934 trapper rifles as Title I ordinary rifles and not as Title II short barrel rifles (SBR) and to treat pre-1945 Mauser C96 pistols with shoulderstock/holster as Title I curio pistols and not as Title II SBRs, a number of trapper rifles and Mauser C96 pistols with shoulderstock/holsters came out of the closet (and many had never been registered as Title II SBRs and ATF didn't care).

The net result of a ban and a "Mr & Mrs America, turn 'em all in" order will be resistance (like the Boston Ban on "Lady Chatterly's Lover"). The Australian and New York City ordered turn-ins of semi-auto rifles were possible only because of registration of rifles in those jurisdictions. Most semi-auto rifles are not registered and searching 4473 dealer records for transaction records on buyers is not easy and inconclusive as to current possession.

Donning my Carnac turban and placing the envelope on my forehead, I predict people will closet their assault weapons hedging against a repeal or sunset, or will sell or trade their guns to people willing to take the risk of hidden possession. If a closeted banned weapon gets stolen, there would be a disincentive against reporting it to NCIC.

Another AWB = A Wicked Bad idea.


(posted under General Gun Discussions)

AlexanderA said:

The rationality of panic buying depends on two assumptions: (a) that there will be a ban, and (b) that existing guns will be grandfathered. As GEM mentioned above, a flat ban with no grandfathering (something that the antigunners will try for, after the experience of the 1994-2004 AWB) would give you two choices: either to turn the guns in or to hide them.

Click to expand...

Certainly there are additional political and (potential) legal/constitutional barriers to a no-grandfather ban/confiscation, as opposed to a "mere" prospective ban. There's a reason that most gun control measures have been prospective in nature. All speculative purchasing based on the fear of an impending legislative change is based on some probabalistic assessment (correct or not) of the likelihood of various outcomes.

It is entirely predictable for some number of people to think that there is enough likelihood of a prospective-ban (either in initial enactment or after court challenges or widespread non-enforcement) to make some level of advance purchasing rational.

ATLDave said:

Eh, part of the 2013 banic was rational - there was a real chance of a return of the federal AWB. So buying AR's and regular-capacity magazines in the anticipation of the possibility of future restrictions was not irrational. Buying crates of .22lr ammo, however....

The 2008/09 mini-panic was far more conjectural.

Click to expand...

Well enough people agreed with you in 2013 to cause a Banic. I never felt it was a realistic threat as the Republicans controlled Congress.

On the other hand I thought 2008 - 2009 was a very real threat as the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and had a Democrat President. Fortunately for us Obama made passage of the Affordable Care Act his top priority.

As for the buying of mass quantities of 22 L.R.

The way I see it if they can institute some kind of ban like the last one where old ARs were grandfathered, they can also institute a "ban" where they can confiscate. Any kind of confiscation would probably not be real good for the political stability of the country.

BSA1 said:

Well enough people agreed with you in 2013 to cause a Banic. I never felt it was a realistic threat as the Republicans controlled Congress.

Click to expand...

Oh, don't get me wrong. I bought no guns at inflated banic prices, and only such ammo or loading supplies as were necessary to keep shooting. I did not personally think we were going to get extensive new substantive restrictions on materiel... I'm just saying it wasn't crazy for people to think so regarding AR's and a few other items. But primers? Primers? Man, that was just a classic bubble/panic dynamic.

GEM said:

I doubt we will see a Federal level ban on the guns in question. There would have to be Democratic control of the Congress and a moral panic among Republican members. That might happen, though, if there was some horror show massacre that dwarfs the current ones.

The worse case would be a ban on all semi-automatic firearms. While some antigunners are stupid about technicalities and blather about the old AWB, many know that if failed and would push for a complete semi ban and a mandatory turn in and confiscation.

In that case, stocking up would be pretty useless. You couldn't sell or gift the guns, no grandfathering. You couldn't use them for competition, hunting or self-defense. The only use would be for 'fat chance' revolution or the apocalypse. Buried stock piles of ARs. Useless for most of us.

Thus, engaging in stockpiling really makes no sense except for 'revolution', 'war' or whatever.

Now, state bans will continue as SCOTUS will do nothing for the short term and probably forever. A legislative solution by Congresss to negate state bans - another fat chance. The supposed gun friendly party has no real interest in such.

Hope this is not to political, not trying to be partisan but analytic.

Click to expand...

Don't stockpile rifles! STOCKPILE AMMUNITION!!!

So you can do what with it? If ARs were banned, unless you have a bolt 223 or a pump (do they still exist?), the rounds are just paper weights. I think you are being funny but ammo you can't use is ammo you can't use. BTW, if such a ban came, all the gizmo work arounds would be chased down to ban also.

But if they don't actually confiscate already owned weapons....

The rationality of panic buying depends on two assumptions: (a) that there will be a ban, and (b) that existing guns will be grandfathered.

Click to expand...

I think it’s (c) people trying to make a quick buck.

After Obama was re-elected and Sandyhook, I sold a Dillon 650 on eBay for over $1800. I didn’t ask that for it, that’s what people bid to for it.

I noticed the prices were stupid at the time and I sold that one and had a new 1050 and a few hundred bucks extra 3 weeks later.

If the people selling them actually thought they could never get them again their would be less buyers because the prices would just be too high or sit on them until they get really stupid. Like $8,000 for a lighting link...

jmorris said:

I think it’s (c) people trying to make a quick buck.

After Obama was re-elected and Sandyhook, I sold a Dillon 650 on eBay for over $1800. I didn’t ask that for it, that’s what people bid to for it.

I noticed the prices were stupid at the time and I sold that one and had a new 1050 and a few hundred bucks extra 3 weeks later.

If the people selling them actually thought they could never get them again their would be less buyers because the prices would just be too high or sit on them until they get really stupid. Like $8,000 for a lighting link...

Click to expand...

Once you’ve sold a $500 AR for $1500 you kinda get a taste for it! I doubt they do it again since we’ve went so long with all you can buy on sale cheap and Everyone knows not to get caught with their pants down.

jmorris said:

After Obama was re-elected and Sandyhook, I sold a Dillon 650 on eBay for over $1800. I didn’t ask that for it, that’s what people bid to for it.

Click to expand...

Holy smokes! Way to flex your capitalist muscles.

Whoever bought that is going to need to make a few rounds before they recover their money, that's for sure.

...and Everyone knows not to get caught with their pants down.

Click to expand...

You would think so but how many years was that since the AWB? How many, “were can I find ____” threads? I can’t count that high. This last time there were millions of folks who never even wanted an AR until they thought they wouldn’t have a choice.

Only thing I can figure is it’s some sort of human nature. Kind of like when the NYSE tanks and people are selling off their investments for pennies on the dollar. That’s the “panic” to me. If you use your head and history as your guide, you’ll realize that over time it always goes up despite the valleys. Historically the best time to buy is when other people are in a panic because everything is on sale.

The inverse is true for gun related panics.

I have so much crap from stocking up before the Clintons and stocking up before Obama that I think I would retire wealthy if there is another panic and I just sell off part of it. I suspect there will be a panic with each time there is a Democrat elected President in the future. It will be a pattern if it isn't already.

The only "panic" buying I could say I ever did was ordering a couple thousand rounds of pistol ammo and another two thousand of rifle ammo while the Twin Towers burned.

Aim1 said:

Do you think if US Supreme Court decides to grant cert on an assault weapons ban case that panic buying would start again as people would want to obtain a so-called assault weapon and high capacity (standard capacity) magazines

Click to expand...

I certainly hope so!
My "AR" days have come and gone,,,
I'd sell 'em all if I could turn a profit on 'em!!!

At this point, I'd consider it unlikely (like, me-hitting-the-lotto-tomorrow-level-unlikely) that they would pass a ban with a confiscation order.

The last time I checked, Feinstein was still kicking around a proposal that would ban new sales of semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines and require all existing ones to be registered as NFA devices.

In light of the current legislative makeup, odds that the Supreme Court will be tipped in our favor, and the current Trump presidency, the likelihood is that Feinstein will retire or die before her proposal is brought up for a vote.

OP:

It might depend on whether the mainstream media or politicians' comments could create headlines out of the gradual process.
With no legal tng., I can't imagine how such a case could go to any of the higher courts.

The Anti-gun ownership movement in the US can wait for decades. They only need gradual, moderate victories which accumulate.
Very unfortunate that several states are accomplishing what the federal govt. hasn't been able to.

Just look at how many bad ideas start in California (not just bizarre, totally irrational gun regs) and then spread to other states. That state is a cancer in so many ways.

Ignition Override said:

OP:

It might depend on whether the mainstream media or politicians' comments could create headlines out of the gradual process.
With no legal tng., I can't imagine how such a case could go to any of the higher courts.

The Anti-gun ownership movement in the US can wait for decades. They only need gradual, moderate victories which accumulate.
Very unfortunate that several states are accomplishing what the federal govt. hasn't been able to.

Just look at how many bad ideas start in California (not just bizarre, totally irrational gun regs) and then spread to other states. That state is a cancer in so many ways.

Click to expand...

Both astute and disturbing. The anti-gun crowd is single minded, relentless and truly believes that the ends do justify the means, the ends, of course, being full confiscation.

I doubt there will be panic buying like there was. Too many cheap AR's out there now. You can buy a new one for under $400 and build one for around $300

When there was fear of a bumpstock ban I saw people trying to sell theirs on Armlist for $600 and none sold at all. Then they dropped to $250 and they still didn't sell.

Anyone who is interested in guns has guns. The only panic I could see might be on ammo, primers and 22lr.

AlexanderA said:

No, because any potential Supreme Court ruling would be no worse than the current situation, and would probably be better. Even in a worst-case scenario, the Court would not ban anything -- they would leave it to the federal and state legislatures to do so. The time to panic would be if and when Congress takes up an AWB, after being green-lighted by the Court. The possibility of that happening is remote.

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. Scotus would either uphold or strike down an existing ban. If they uphold and legislators decide to go for more...then the panic buying will start. However if Scotus were to strike down a ban, then it could cause a temporary shortage/ price jump because of folks now being able to exercise their constitutional rights.

Unless you are rather bankrupt this week or barely under the legal age, buy at least one example of what you know you will enjoy shooting, or will treasure looking at in your secure, Archaeological Museum.

Otherwise, don't fret about it. This might be a bit off the specific subject here, but if you buy via Armslist from an individual, the govt. won't ever have a record that you own the gun, unless a huge Orwellian ("1984") database exists to integrate all cell phone calls and their meaning.
Life is too short or decent health too fragile to be 1% so paranoid about such a database capability.

Our main risks involving having guns can easily consist of medical problems and serious, crippling accidents---Not nationwide bans or the oft-dreaded gun confiscation.
Only my perspective here, but let's not forget the bigger, overall picture. One of the few acquaintances my age (63) was just diagnosed with Parkinsons Disease. This is just a drop in the bucket of what is happening to people my age.

Aim1 said:

stevehgraham said:

When Ginsburg dies, short firearms stocks.

Click to expand...

What?

Click to expand...

Most people buy stocks with hope of price going up also known as going "long" (or I call it "Buy and hope").

When people "short" stocks, they anticipate price going down - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shortselling.asp

When justice Ginsburg retires, her replacement to the Supreme Court would likely be conservative and pro-Second Amendment which would results in pro-gun rulings from SCOTUS for decades to come. And chances are record setting "panic buying" we have seen in recent years would decrease and share price of S&W (AOBC - previously SWHC), Ruger (RGR) and other gun manufacturers and related company stocks like Vista Outdoor (VSTO - Federal/Alliant/Speer etc.) would likely fall.

S&W (now American Outdoor Brands) and Vista Outdoor are large conglomerate of companies (click on links for long list of companies they own) and since 2016, share prices have fallen by 60% while share price of Ruger has gone up and down (with mostly downward trend).

BUT, if share price of AOBC and VSTO fall further before Ginsburg retires, shorting these stocks after retirement of Ginsburg may not be a sure thing as stocks may have reached technical bottoms and rebound (stocks do go up, down or trade sideways). So I would reassess the situation at retirement of Ginsburg before I go short or long.

bds said:

When people "short" stocks, they anticipate price going down

Click to expand...

That's correct. Here's the reasoning behind the referenced post: when Ginsburg dies, presumably a pro-gun Justice will be appointed to take her place. With a solid 5-member pro-gun majority on the court, gun bans will be off the table, and therefore panic buying in anticipation of bans will stop. Gun sales will drop, and gun companies will be in trouble. That's why selling their stock short would make sense.

Ginsburg must be ingesting a colorful mix of drugs to prop herself up.
But if she's steadily going downhill, who can evaluate and determine that she can "adequately" help make decisions and rulings?