Invest in so-called "evil" guns before election?

[44 AMP]

There won't be a confiscation of any guns, etc. Our laws require that we be compensated if this were to happen, and this just would not work.

Some states have already done it. Banning certain guns, and magazines, etc. without compensation of any kind!

Don't think it can't happen here, it already HAS!!

[Onward Allusion]

Er, if you're gonna buy guns do so for other reasons than "investment". If you're gonna invest in guns, do it with real collectibles and not evil black rifles.

Take a look at the market for AR's. I just got an email for an ATI Omni Hybrid for $459 . . . Insane, considering that 3 years ago the average price of AR's were over $2K. Also, with all the 80% kits out there, there isn't going to be a panic anytime soon regardless of who gets into the Whitehouse.

[NateKirk]

Quote:
There won't be a confiscation of any guns, etc. Our laws require that we be compensated if this were to happen, and this just would not work.
Some states have already done it. Banning certain guns, and magazines, etc. without compensation of any kind!

Don't think it can't happen here, it already HAS!!

What states? Evidence and examples or it didn't happen.

[rickyrick]

You're right.... Never fear, it didn't happen.
I live in a state that I cannot own an NFA item, for starters. We all comply.

I'm sure you can possess whatever firearm you wish in New York and other similar areas.

[NateKirk]

You're sarcasm doesn't convince me of the problem. I can own whatever gun I wish where I live given that I fill out the paper work. I've never heard of places where outright bans lasted for long; whether you consider restrictions and legal hoop jumping akin to confiscation and tyrannical restriction is up to you, but I've never had any trouble getting what I want when the forms are filled out properly.

[ARSG12]

From Tom Servo:

"I've watched the "get it before they're banned" mentality at work several times now. I find it problematic for several reasons.

First off, if they're going to be banned, that means people can't own them. It's hard to sell an item people can't own without running afoul of the law."

Actually, my intention wasn't to buy now (or during a panic) in order to sell after they've already been banned, assuming that would happen. My intention was to sell during a panic when the prices were higher. In the Obama panic, there wasn't an eventual ban, but prices did go up and people were willing to pay them. In 1994, there was panic as well, and the threatened legislation actually went through. But it just seems to me that with the current selection we have for this upcoming election, it's almost inevitable prices will go up again based on fear alone. I just wanted to see what others here thought of my idea and if anyone else was thinking of doing the same thing.

[444]

Guns have always gone up in value.

Over the last 20 years or so, there have been a NUMBER of buying panics that occurred and if you had bought the right stuff for what was in demand at the time, you would have made money on them. This is just me, but it wouldn't be enough money to make it worthwhile TO ME. Making a total of a thousand dollars or two isn't really worthwhile TO ME. As was said, I have a part time job and I make a thousand or so each and every month and probably could make more if I wanted to. Similar to these guys buying Walmart .22 LR ammo and selling it for twice or three times what they paid for it. To me, the amount of money they could be making isn't worth the hassle; we just arn't talking about enough money to interest me. I have better things to do than hang out at a Walmart waiting on the truck to deliver the ammo, then take the time to sell it. My time is worth more than that to me. But, I guess if you didn't have anything else to do and making a few hundred dollars meant a lot to you, and you didn't want to actually work for the money, then it is possible.
Of course if you bought enough stuff, and sold it at several times what you paid for it, you COULD make some serious money but there is risk involved, it would tie up your money in the mean time.........

One more thing to consider is that again, we have been though this over and over and each time, people went out and bought everything in sight. It would seem to me that eventually, the people that could be potential buyers, already bought all this stuff during the last panic or in between panics and they just don't want anymore. I am a good example of this. After the "assault weapons ban" expired, I bought all the magazines I am ever going to need and then some. Same with .22 LR ammo.............................. During that ban, I did pay a premium for some magazines because I got a new gun and didn't own any standard capacity magazines for them but I made up for it after it sunset. In my lifetime, there have only been so many of these panics and I think it goes without saying that far more people bought far more guns and far more ammo than they would have if there had never been any discussion of gun control. Eventually the market reaches a saturation point. You will always be able to see guns and ammo. It's just a question of whether it is worth it financially and legally.

[KEYBEAR]

Having seen panic buying before all I would said is you may make a few bucks . Just is not worth the little money I made to be a scumbag the rest of my life ?

[ARSG12]

444:

Well, I wasn't really thinking of making a living at it by any means. I was just going by what I heard during the last panic when it was said that you couldn't get an AR for less than $1,000 of any brand. With prices on budget AR's now at $600 or less, I was thinking of buying one (just one!) of those and hanging onto it until prices went back up, hoping to sell it to a dealer for $900 or $1,000. Not looking to make a fortune. But a few hundred isn't chump change either!

Having seen panic buying before all I would said is you may make a few bucks . Just is not worth the little money I made to be a scumbag the rest of my life ?

If making a few hundred for selling one gun makes me a scumbag the rest of my life, what would the dealers be when they manage to sell dozens of them?

[444]

One more point: I have been reading on various forums over the last year or so about the price of AR15s. People are saying that they are at a possible historic low. People are rejoicing at the fact that AR15s are so cheap.

Think about why they are so cheap.

The law of supply and demand. The supply is high, the demand is low; therefore the price is low. The market sets the price. Manufacturers and businesses need to lower prices in order to move product when demand drops.

One reason demand is low and prices are low is because the market is saturated.

[ARSG12]

Yes, but when the buying environment changes because of legislation that people are sure will pass (Clinton being elected could accomplish that), then demand goes up--along with prices. Doesn't even matter if the ban or new regulation passes or not. All that's needed is for a threat to be made along with people in power who can carry it out. Right now, it's looking like we're headed that way come November.

[44 AMP]

What states? Evidence and examples or it didn't happen.

You might look at California and New York for examples...

[NateKirk]

Yes California and New York are restrictive, but you can still purchase and own a firearm in those states. I've known people who hunt in New York even. The existence of legal hoops to jump through does not constitute a ban. Everything requires some form of headache; renewing a drivers license, obtaining a passport, renewing certifications, etc.

Also upon reading more on New York gun laws, specifically "assault weapon" laws, it may be possible that the "possession" of an assault weapon, which is banned in New York, may be different from "ownership." I didn't research too far into it, but if anyone knows any specific cases and can cite them to see some precedent and common interpretations of this, please chime in.

More on definition of "possession" http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...com/possession

If "possession" is indeed legally interpreted differently than "ownership," it may be possible to still own an assault weapon, although it would end up being a wall hanger as use is prohibited. Note that I am NOT a lawyer, do NOT take my thoughts as legal advice.
However since they require you to register assault weapons but say nothing of confiscation, I take that as evidence of my thoughts being correct.

[JimPage]

New York city registered the "assault weapons" because they just wanted to know where they were. Two years later they told everyone to turn them in or get them out of the city. I say that qualifies as a ban and at least partial confiscation. There was no remuneration IIRC.

[JimPage]

Further, the registered AR's cannot be sold or left to family members or others in NY state since the SAFE Act, (what a misnomer!) So the effect is a ban at least in the future.

[NateKirk]

Again, citations.

[Quentin2]

Gun prices have varied wildly up and down over the last decade. But ammo is a sure thing to keep increasing in price, maybe that's where "investments" could be made, before the next panic. I sure wish I'd picked up more 22lr years ago!

[NateKirk]

All google found for me was panic and fear mongering, from websites clearly dedicated to catering to a specific type of viewer and not to the dispersal of information. If you look into the SAFE act in New York it's pretty clear on what you need to do to register, what happens if you don't, and who can and can't register. There's always a choice not to follow the law if you deem it important enough, however there are consequences to those decisions. If I was living in New York and didn't want to register, I would just send them to a relative out of state by "selling" them for $1 each.

New York's SAFE act: https://safeact.ny.gov/gun-owners

[JimPage]

NateKirk: I have no citations. It was many moons (years) ago. It was well publicized at the time in the American Rifleman and other gun rags. Some newspaper articles appeared too. I can't remember the dates. Sorry. Perhaps someone older like me remembers it. But I don't speak with forked tongue!
I realize that it's hard to believe what you don't want to see happen.

[44 AMP]

NateKirk, also look at the CA "Roberti-Roos" act, and its consequences. People who owned "listed" arms were required to register them, and some time later, got letters telling them they had to be turned in. According to rumor at the time, some of the people turning them in were arrested for possessing them. NO, I don't have cites, but the information is out there, if you look in the right places, I'm sure. It was in print (magazines, back in the pre-internet days, its probably on the web somewhere.

If Google is only giving you panic and fear mongering, perhaps you should look elsewhere...

[2ndsojourn]

From Nate:

"I've never heard of places where outright bans lasted for long;"

Nate, did you ever hear of New Jersey?

Here's an attached list of banned guns.

http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/pdf...itle13ch54.pdf

[rickyrick]

Since the thread is about evil black guns, there has been enough evidence that at least one state has a ban on them.

I guess it's acceptable to be able to posses a non-semiauto rifle as long as there's significant government hoops to jump through. I don't get nate's viewpoint, but it's his right to feel that way.

[TMD]

Anyway, it seems more than likely Hillary will be our next president

If you're so confident in this statement then why aren't you betting the farm. I mean seriously, if so confident keep this a secret to yourself and corner the market.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by NateKirk

Yes California and New York are restrictive, but you can still purchase and own a firearm in those states. I've known people who hunt in New York even. The existence of legal hoops to jump through does not constitute a ban.

That's a non sequitur. The NY act specifically bans arms with certain features, and therefore constitutes a ban. Moreover, it's a ban on items "in common use".

An anxiety that common arms will become the object of bans in more places or nationally isn't without basis. Though the 94AWB allowed possession of previously held items, that doesn't mean that the next one will.

That brings us to the problem with buying prior to an unknown future event. It could work out as it did in 1994 and those preban items will have an increased value. It is also possible that the objects will become contraband with the entire invested value post.

There were some very high prices for BCGs following the Sandy Hook drought, but people who fed the scarcity by hoarding for a quick buck now find a market in which those items are as cheap as ever, maybe cheaper.

I am hoping this happens with 22lr within the next couple of years.

Originally Posted by NateKirk

Everything requires some form of headache; renewing a drivers license, obtaining a passport, renewing certifications, etc.

That isn't accurate. I need not show papers to buy bread, gasoline or a firearm in my state. At some point paperieren bitte becomes an unsubtle recommendation not to bother with the activity.

Originally Posted by NateKirk

Also upon reading more on New York gun laws, specifically "assault weapon" laws, it may be possible that the "possession" of an assault weapon, ...

No need for the quotation marks around possession.

If I was living in New York and didn't want to register, I would just send them to a relative out of state by "selling" them for $1 each.

In which case you would no longer possess them.

[rickyrick]

If I had to go by NJ's list, my safe would be cleaned out. Remaining would be an old rusty double barrel and a mosberg pump (even the mosberg would be questionable). Might get to keep the beretta 92