Whats going on? (the current state of the gun world)

[David S]

Alright, admitably i go thru phases with my guns. I will buy one and it may be years before i buy another. Same thing with Ammo, when i buy i usually stock up so i dont have to buy so often.
Well its been a little over a year since i bought a gun, and i went in my local FFL to see if they had a Walther P99c..... they called all their suppliers... couldnt get one at all and the price they DID qoute me was aboout $600?!!?!?

A few days ago i went into walmart (where i buy my cheap hole punching ammo) intending to buy some 357.... all they had was a box of 100 for $38??!?!!?

I started looking around a few days ago and the several custom holster makers i know looking for a new IWB.....i contacted several custom makers and the shortest wait was 4 or 5 months out?!?!?! what?!

All 3 of these issues worries me.... I mean just 5 years ago you could get holsters easily..... 9mm Winchester whitebox at walmart was $9 for 100 rnds (now its $15..) , and the little p99c was in the low $500s i thought...

I realize costs rise blah blah blah, but it seems like it happened rather quickly and went up a VERY high percentage.....

so..... whats up?

 

[HKUSP45C]

Gas prices went up a considerable amopunt in most parts of the world. Specifically here in The States. Metal prices have jumped to an all time high too. Being that guns and ammo are primarily made of metal and are heavy to ship, the prices have gone up.

Holsters? I got nuthin. Maybe the influx of new people getting CHLs from Katrina and VTech tragedies are driving holster makers to new lead times on their products. Maybe leather is getting more expensive and more difficult to get because of increased shipping costs too. That's just a guess.

Also, prices do just go up. Supply and demand, inflation, what the market will bear, limited to your locale ... yadda yadda

ETA here's a P99c for $565
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/21_55/products_id/11814

 

[fletcher]

Ammunition manufacturers have implemented price increases between 5%-15% across the board for their products. That, in combination with the transportation costs which have been gradually increasing over the last 6-7 years or so, has really driven up prices. I've been getting 9mm at Dick's (flame suit on) for $6.98/50, which is about the best price there is nowadays.

I also can't think of why holsters would all be out, unless there are more gun owners, and the same number of custom holster manufacturers.

 

[David S]

hkups45c, thanks for the link but thats for the DAO..... im after the AS.... which is the hardest to find... but hey im just a ASman!

Fletcher, your tellin me DICKS has 9mm? a new DICKS just opened nearby, and all they seemed to sell was longgun stuff.... didnt realize they had 9 Mil...
6.98/50 aint bad.... has wally world beat by a few bucks...

 

[David S]

question about ammo while we are on the topic: is it WORTH it to buy in BULK? like 1000 rounds at a time? if so whats a good place to get cheap bulk ammo? sportsmans guide?

 

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Holsters? I got nuthin. Maybe the influx of new people getting CHLs from Katrina and VTech tragedies are driving holster makers to new lead times on their products.

I blame the ethanol lobby.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

At Dicks you might have to ask as they usually keep it behind the desk.

 

[David S]

luckily i know the guy at the gun counter and my local DICKS....

so whats the bad rap about DICKS? besides the super high prices?

 

[El Tejon]

Ammunition: Combination of the hyperindustrialization of India and the PRC, a war and several other macro factors. Prices are rising and will continue to rise for the foreseeable future. Until the market corrects itself (small suppliers fill the gaps, people reload, more dry practice, etc.), learn to reload.

Gun prices: gun sales are rising as we ready ourselves for November 2008 and the bans of '09. Prices will rise well into 2008 where they will spike before January 2009 where, depending on the election, they will go higher or flatten depending on who is in the White House.

Custom holsters: it takes time to do things properly and a proper holster is vital. Places like Milt Sparks, my favorite, are very small operations. They are worth the wait.

 

[David S]

hmm the 08 election eh?

ban of 09?

are all of these just SPECULATION or is there actually law in effect here?

 

[El Tejon]

It is law that there will be an election on the first Tuesday of November 2008.

If Hillary wins the election, what chance do you think there will be that a gun ban(s) will be pushed and pushed very hard in 2009?

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

It is speculation. There is no law in effect. A great number of people have already decided that a ban is inevitable and are doing their best to spread FUD about upcoming election.

Remember how so many people were certain that Nancy Pelosi was going to introduce a bill to ban all guns the minute she walked through the door in January of this year and it was going to be instantly passed without debate? Yeah, it's the same people who are prophesying gloom and doom again.

Aside from Carolyn McCarthy, no one else seems to be terribly interested in introducing much gun control legislation and even that hasn't really gone anywhere. The terrifying HR 1022? Shuffled off to a subcommittee and forgotten about. Even Virginia Tech didn't dust that one off.

While there is no doubt we need to remain vigilant and keep fighting the good fight, I refuse to live in fear of "the ban."

While guns may be the center of our universe, it's pretty clear that the majority of the country, including most of Congress, don't seem to think it is a hot issue.

If you were going to get me to lay bets when something serious may be attempted, I would pick 2013, not 2009. But don't worry, there will be plenty of people wailing and gnashing their teeth no matter what happens. Gun owners seem to love to feel persecuted.

 

[El Tejon]

No gloom and doom, only reality: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022

I certainly hope nothing happens, but after the VCCA of '94 I fail to see how preparation for a proposed ban will hurt us.

 

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Aside from Carolyn McCarthy, no one else seems to be terribly interested in introducing much gun control legislation and even that hasn't really gone anywhere. The terrifying HR 1022? Shuffled off to a subcommittee and forgotten about.

Unfortunately, your statements don't survive even the most casual encounter with the facts. HR 1022 has at least 41 co-sponsors, several of them very senior and leading members of the House (like Barney Frank & Henry Waxman.)

Even Virginia Tech didn't dust that one off.

7 of the aforementioned co-sponsors signed on immedately following the VA Tech massacre.

True, the bill's progress has been stagnant for the past few months, but do you seriously believe that with the list of supporters it has, a pickup of a few seats by the Dems in '08 wouldn't result in a real good chance if it being revived?

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

El Tejon, I'm fully aware of 1022. However, the reality is that it is all but dead in subcommittee and even McCarthy herself seems to have lost hope of it going anywhere.

I fail to see how preparation for a proposed ban will hurt us

FUD increases demand, demand cause the price to increase, increased prices result in less new gun owners due to the high entry price. While it isn't bad for you personally, it certainly isn't helping the cause of widespread gun ownership. I think FUD is bad in general for gun owners, but that's another topic altogether.

Unfortunately, your statements don't survive even the most casual encounter with the facts.

With your casual interpretation of the facts, perhaps. I'm using the same facts you are. Regarding McCarthy, if you care to dig around, I'm sure you can find the interview where she said that it wasn't the time for this sort of bill. I think you need to look around May.

HR 1022 has at least 41 co-sponsors, several of them very senior and leading members of the House (like Barney Frank & Henry Waxman.)

56, actually. The majority of them came on late and a few have been trickling in here and there. There number isn't so important as when they signed on. The bill was introduced with that, 13 co-sponsors? You would think if it was such a powerful bill with so many leading supporters, it would have come on with a hundred co-sponsors and been pushed through. Yet it was quietly shuffled off to committee. As other co-sponsors came on, did they issue prereleases? Was there a move to revive the bill? Nope, their names were quietly added to the list, really only noticed by the folks watching it in the gun community. Why is that?

Well, I suppose you could say that it because they are silently building support so they can spring it on us in a surprise move. However, I think most of the co-sponsors are seeing it as a safe way to add a little gun control legislation to their CV without actually risking the ire of the pro-gun folks. They saw the bill was left for dead and know signing on will have little to no repercussions since it won't leave committee. But by signing on, they get to say they are tough on crime when they are asked. "I supported the anti-crime assault weapons ban this last session!" It's a free pass for them.

Naturally, one can say that they truly do want to see this legislation pass in their heart of hearts, but if that were the case, wouldn't they be pushing it hard?

7 of the aforementioned co-sponsors signed on immedately following the VA Tech massacre.

Same deal. "Oh no, Virginia Tech! Quick, where is some gun-control legislation I can sign on to so my constituents will know that I'm a "do-er"? Assault weapons ban? Won't that make me a target for the NRA like in 94? Dead in commmittee you say? Great!" Signing on after VT shows even more than they weren't pushing the AWB, they just wanted to make sure they got their name on a feel good measure.

Again, if these 56 co-sponsors were so dedicated to this cause, why didn't they just get it out of the subcommittee? Delahunt, Nadler and Jackson-Lee are all on that subcommittee and sponsors of the bill. Nadler signed on after VT, certainly he could have gotten with the others to get something so important on the calendar. But he didn't. None of them did. Why not?

True, the bill's progress has been stagnant for the past few months

Stagnant for the past few months? It was introduced and immediately sent to the House Committee on the Judiciary where it languished for over a month. It was then sent off the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security where it's been sitting idle, not even put on the calendar, for almost 6 months.

but do you seriously believe that with the list of supporters it has, a pickup of a few seats by the Dems in '08 wouldn't result in a real good chance if it being revived?

In 2005 we could have had the same conversation. Look at HR 1312! 94 co-sponsors (includling Barney Frank & Henry Waxman, btw). If the Dems in '06 pick up a few seats, won't it be revived again?

And yes, it was. But this time it only got 56 co-sponsors after 6 months when before 94 in 3.5 months. If they are so hell bent on passing this, why is there so much less support now, 2 years later with a Democrat controlled Congress, than there was in 2005? Even if I'm completely wrong about the intentions of these folks and they are actually True-Believers™, why have they been so slow to sign on?

I have no doubt McCarthy will introduce this legislation every session. This is her baby.

I still think the Democrats, and the country as a whole, are facing larger issues than gun control. While there certainly will be legislation introduced, I don't think we are going to see it pushed hard in 2009.

But, the more pressing issue is this. Where can David S find a P99C AS for less than $600. I'd suggest looking at gun broker.

Edited: Damn it to hell. I just spent all that time replying and realized it ended up being a political post. Now I have to report myself. But El Tejon started it! lousy badgers

 

[cnorman18]

Holster demand

I think the explanation for the long lines waiting for holsters is obvious: Where there used to be less than 10 states with CCW, now there are 40. More people carrying, more demand for holsters.

Another indicator: Pocket holsters used to be hard to find, since only a few makers bothered with them. Now there are dozens of styles and EVERYBODY makes them.

Think positive. The fact that I've been waiting almost three months for a pocket holster from Palehorse Gunleather means that LOTS of people are joining the ranks of armed citizens every day. And that ain't nothin' but good.

 

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

With your casual interpretation of the facts, perhaps.

The problem being that I offered no "interpretation" - casual or otherwise - of the facts. I simply presented them.

I'm using the same facts you are.

Now. In your previous post you didn't use any of the facts I presented.

Regarding McCarthy, if you care to dig around, I'm sure you can find the interview where she said that it wasn't the time for this sort of bill. I think you need to look around May.

I'm well aware of that. If you read the rest of my post (which I have to assume you did, since you went on to quote it and respond to it) you know that I wasn't claiming that anyone thought this was the time for the bill. So your point here is irrelevant, at least as a response to my post.

56, actually. The majority of them came on late and a few have been trickling in here and there.

Since the figure of 41 that I gave was correct as of April 2007, that means that an additional 15 have come on board since that time. Not exactly a ground-swell, but certainly not an indication of a dead bill either.

There number isn't so important as when they signed on. The bill was introduced with that, 13 co-sponsors?

Wrong. It was introduced with NO co-sponsors. All have joined since it's introduction, and the numbers have slowly but steadily increased in the interim.

You would think if it was such a powerful bill with so many leading supporters, it would have come on with a hundred co-sponsors and been pushed through. Yet it was quietly shuffled off to committee. As other co-sponsors came on, did they issue prereleases? Was there a move to revive the bill? Nope, their names were quietly added to the list, really only noticed by the folks watching it in the gun community. Why is that?

Because, as already noted, they know that "this is not the time for this sort of bill." Why? Because they lack the Congressional seats for passage, and there's a sitting president who would veto it so fast it would make their heads spin. You don't suppose they're hoping that's a temporary condition, do you?

Well, I suppose you could say that it because they are silently building support so they can spring it on us in a surprise move.

I could say that, but I wouldn't. Who would be surprised?

However, I think most of the co-sponsors are seeing it as a safe way to add a little gun control legislation to their CV without actually risking the ire of the pro-gun folks. They saw the bill was left for dead and know signing on will have little to no repercussions since it won't leave committee. But by signing on, they get to say they are tough on crime when they are asked. "I supported the anti-crime assault weapons ban this last session!" It's a free pass for them.

As we're alread seeing, the ire of the pro-gun folks is already evident. It's a lot of things, but a free-pass (if they care about those constituents at all) it's not.

Naturally, one can say that they truly do want to see this legislation pass in their heart of hearts, but if that were the case, wouldn't they be pushing it hard?

Not if they understand the importance of timing. Deferring a battle until conditions are such that you have a chance of winning is usually the wiser course of action.

Same deal. "Oh no, Virginia Tech! Quick, where is some gun-control legislation I can sign on to so my constituents will know that I'm a "do-er"? Assault weapons ban? Won't that make me a target for the NRA like in 94? Dead in commmittee you say? Great!" Signing on after VT shows even more than they weren't pushing the AWB, they just wanted to make sure they got their name on a feel good measure.

Barney Frank was one who signed on about that time and, although I don't support the guy, if you know anything about him at all you'll know that he doesn't fit that mold as well as most other Congress-critters. He tends to mean what he says.

Again, if these 56 co-sponsors were so dedicated to this cause, why didn't they just get it out of the subcommittee? Delahunt, Nadler and Jackson-Lee are all on that subcommittee and sponsors of the bill. Nadler signed on after VT, certainly he could have gotten with the others to get something so important on the calendar. But he didn't. None of them did. Why not?

Already explained.

Stagnant for the past few months? It was introduced and immediately sent to the House Committee on the Judiciary where it languished for over a month. It was then sent off the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security where it's been sitting idle, not even put on the calendar, for almost 6 months.

Again, see above.

In 2005 we could have had the same conversation. Look at HR 1312! 94 co-sponsors (includling Barney Frank & Henry Waxman, btw). If the Dems in '06 pick up a few seats, won't it be revived again?

Well, no. In '05 the Republicans still controlled both houses. The Dems picking up a few seats meant, at most, a slim majority. Now they control Congress (by said slim majority). Gains at this point mean an increase to that majority, not simply catching up.

And yes, it was. But this time it only got 56 co-sponsors after 6 months when before 94 in 3.5 months. If they are so hell bent on passing this, why is there so much less support now, 2 years later with a Democrat controlled Congress, than there was in 2005? Even if I'm completely wrong about the intentions of these folks and they are actually True-Believers™, why have they been so slow to sign on?

Again......see above.

I still think the Democrats, and the country as a whole, are facing larger issues than gun control.

No doubt. But the Republicans - and the rest of us - have been facing larger issues than many of the silly things the GOP had been pushing through Congress for the past few years (think on-line poker, and things like that.) That didn't stop them, did it?

 

[cnorman18]

?

Can anyone say, "thread drift"?

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

cnorman18 is, of course, correct. I won't bother to discussing any of the issues raised the previous post, such as Frank supposedly sponsoring after VT when he in fact signed on a month beforehand.

This is not the place for political posts, as I mentioned after my first post. In fact, I had come back to edit out the political nature of my original post since it deviated substantially from the board's current mission. However, it was responded to so I suppose I'll leave the post intact, but exit the thread. While I stand by my post, number of initial cosponsors notwithstanding, I see no point in beating this long dead horse.

 

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I won't bother to discussing any of the issues raised the previous post, such as Frank supposedly sponsoring after VT when he in fact signed on a month beforehand.

Oh, well....OK. So long as you're being honest about not discussing what you just discussed.

 

[cnorman18]

?

I was just sort of hoping to see if anyone thought my explanation of the holster shortage held any water.

I don't object to discussions about possible GC legislation; I've participated in them. In context, the drift here was understandable. No harm, no foul.

But we WERE talking about something else, and that discussion, worthwhile in its own right, seems to have been lost.

 

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I was just sort of hoping to see if anyone thought my explanation of the holster shortage held any water.

For the record:

Yes, I think you're explanation is not only plausible, but also probably correct.

 

[MrPeter]

Wow, so that's why L&P was closed

I love that theres a holster shortage. I wish there was a shortage on hollow point personal defence ammo as well. Instead, its a shortage of all ammo because of this stupid war.

 

[novaDAK]

There was no need for her to dust off HR1022 after the VT incident.
She just introduced more into the system to greater her odds of getting SOMETHING.

HR1859 was introduced THE SAME DAY of the VT incident.

Introduced Apr 16, 2007
H.R. 1859: Anti-Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2007

Introduced Apr 17, 2007
H.R. 1895: Anti-Gun Trafficking Penalties Enhancement Act of 2007


HR1022 (Introduced Feb 13, 2007) isn't the only thing she's been working on...Since then...she has

Introduced Feb 16, 2007
H.R. 1167: No Fly, No Buy Act of 2007
(if they happen to add your name to the no fly list, you will then automatically fall all future NICS checks. Good luck to those who have a common name )

Introduced Feb 16, 2007
H.R. 1168: Foreign Felon Gun Prohibition Act of 2007

And McCarthy isn't the only one to look out for...

Feinstein has

Introduced May 8, 2007
S. 1331: Long-Range Sniper Rifle Safety Act of 2007
Introduced May 7, 2007
S. 1316: Firearms by Foreign Convicts Clarification Act of 2007

Schumer:

Introduced Jan 4, 2007
S. 77: Anti-Gun Trafficking Penalties Enhancement Act of 2007


And these are only the bills that they've sponsored...not all they've voted for