I'm still ambivalent about calling the last few months a panic at all.
Was the rush to buy Nintendo Wii when they first came out a panic? No. Market conditions changed (a new product was introduced) and a sizable number of people valued the Wii more highly than they valued the money it takes to buy a Wii. As a result stores sold out of Wii consoles, "1 per customer" signs went up, they went on eBay at several times MSRP, and so on. It may not have been classically rational (because the value placed on being an early adopter is not acknowledged in classical economics even though it clearly adds to social capital and can be an outright bargain compared to other ways of gaining social capital -- that's a hole in classical economics, not an indictment of the behavior) but it was not in any sense a panic.
Same with black rifles (and guns in general) -- they aren't actually on the radar of most people most of the time. However, when the conversation is shoved to the forefront (as national park carry, the election, well publicized survival incidents such as Katrina, and so on all did), people who had not previously considered firearms important start to value them. Value owning them in fact instead of having them available in theory, because they reasonably believe that their need may come when the gun stores are closed or out of stock.
When they can't get them -- when the gun stores are out of stock -- that's just additional proof that it is important to have them well before any need arises. It isn't a panic inducer, it is a proof that the theory of preparedness is correct.
Add uncertainty about jobs and continued income and it is far from panic to prioritize a firearms and ammo above some other wants.
Once people have what they think they need, the market stabilizes at a new level (which, because more firearms are owned by more people, is likely to be more significant than it was previously) and then gradually shifts with market forces from there.
It's a mischaracterization to call any of that "panic".