The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 16, 2016, 02:58 PM   #1
ARSG12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2016
Posts: 9
Invest in so-called "evil" guns before election?

I sure hope this thread doesn't get closed/deleted. I tried posting a question about this on another site and it wasn't even allowed to be asked.

Anyway, it seems more than likely Hillary will be our next president, and we know how she is concerning guns. So, remembering what happened the last time a president tried for a ban on AR's (and similar) along with high-cap magazines and how prices went up so high that even a "budget" AR was selling for no less than $1,000 if one could be found, do you think it would be prudent to purchase a rifle such as a Del-ton or DPMS for what they're selling for now (around $550 here) and then just hanging on to it to resell when prices go up? Basically, it would be an "investment gun". I know many people would have done so prior to the panic of a couple years ago, so I'd be surprised if we haven't learned from it.

I know many people will say, "Just get a Colt" or whatever because they are more likely to be sought after. But AR's were being sought no matter what brand they were before. So if a Colt is selling for $2,000 during a panic, and a DPMS was available for $1,000, I doubt a person wanting to "get one while they still can" will turn their nose up at a DPMS.

What are your thoughts?
ARSG12 is offline  
Old May 16, 2016, 03:09 PM   #2
Targa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2014
Posts: 615
I don't think it is a bad investment as long as your not counting on it to supplement an income.
I picked up a AR simply because I wanted one eventually. I too am afraid of the election outcome and the availability of AR type of rifles so eventually came sooner than I had anticipated. Anyway, nothing is ever certain but history does indicate that you would make money on it.
No offense meant by this but I hope you don't make a dime if you buy and sell, simply because that means the election and maybe more importantly our supreme court did not turn out the way you and I anticipated.
Targa is offline  
Old May 16, 2016, 03:26 PM   #3
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 11,867
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.

If it's profit one seeks, guns are a terrible investment. Take the last panic. If one had the ability to see the situation coming, and that person was able to secure product at normal retail prices in time, he might be able to turn a profit when supplies get scarce. If not? Lots of folks bought multiple rifles or receivers, and when supply caught back up at retail, they ended up having to sell them at a loss or sit on them.

And that was just a short-term scare because politicians were yammering about it on the news. If an actual ban were coming down the pipe, timing would have to be even more precise, and our would-be entrepreneur might be stuck with stuff he can't sell at all.

Then there's the potential problem of buying guns with the explicit intent of reselling at a profit. The ATF has never defined how many guns sold constitutes being in the business of dealing in firearms, but who wants to be that test case?

Especially in your hypothetical regime of extreme bannery and government action.

Frankly, if a small percentage of the panic speculators would instead throw a few bucks to a pro-gun organization, or if they'd engage in the most minimal of communication with their legislators, maybe we wouldn't have to worry about potential bans, huh?
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old May 16, 2016, 03:27 PM   #4
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 6,431
If you are discussing buying a gun for purely speculative reasons—i.e. you have no burning desire to own it for its own sake—I think you're taking a risk because IMHO any future administration that enacts another Assault Weapons Ban is most likely to do it in such a way that the banned items become difficult to sell.

Most serious gun-control advocates are aware that, in many ways, the 1994 AWB was not only ineffective in attaining its stated purpose, but that it arguably helped the gun industry by artificially stoking interest, demand, and speculation in "banned" items. In many ways, the 1994 AWB wasn't really a ban at all, because in most states, anyone with enough coin could buy a "pre-ban" item. (IMHO it's only a true ban if the item is prohibited from ownership generally, or ownership is tightly constrained to a small, exclusive, and dwindling group of people, as with "Prohibited"-class firearms in Canada.)

Here's how I expect a future AWB to play out in the USA, in order:
  1. UBCs
  2. Registration
  3. Background checks and registration for "assault weapons" become illegal, along with ownership of so-called high-capacity mags by people without a matching AW already on the registration list
  4. Gun control advocates patiently wait for AW owners to die off
To get back to the original question, I would stockpile lowers rather than complete low-end production guns. They take up less space, they're cheaper, and if I get stuck with them (see above), I'm not also stuck with a bunch of extraneous components I don't want.

It should also be pointed out that one must be a FFL to sell firearms that were originally purchased with intent to resell. (Without going into the legal specifics, it is generally NOT considered unlawful for a non-licensee to buy firearms with the eventual intent to resell; the problem comes when the items are actually offered for sale.)
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

Last edited by carguychris; May 16, 2016 at 03:39 PM. Reason: typo, reword
carguychris is offline  
Old May 16, 2016, 03:45 PM   #5
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 6,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
The ATF has never defined how many guns sold constitutes being in the business of dealing in firearms...
Actually, they have. Kinda.

18 USC § 921(a)(11) says that being a a dealer involves "regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms", my emphasis underlined.

To be repetitive, there's gotta be at least 2. The problem comes when you list the second one for sale, so if you've already ever sold one gun in your lifetime, you're potentially in jeopardy. That first one is golden.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old May 16, 2016, 03:51 PM   #6
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Location: Native Texan, Washington Now
Posts: 4,880
I've already gotten what I wanted "evil" wise.

I anticipated anxiety over the upcoming elections.

I would like more ammo, but my evil black rifle wants have been met.

I don't think much of a shortage will occur: lots of people have done what I did and the market is saturated
__________________
Navin R. Johnson: "He hates these cans!!!! Stay away from the cans!!!!"
rickyrick is offline  
Old May 16, 2016, 04:39 PM   #7
dakota.potts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Greenwood, South Carolina
Posts: 2,211
I would say get what you want now if you're worried and start putting away ammo, but don't go crazy. Buy what you'll use before the hysteria sets in
__________________
Gunsmithing and Machine Tool Student, Piedmont Technical College
CNC Machinist
Greenwood County Leader, South Carolina Carry Inc.
Always looking for new opportunities
dakota.potts is offline  
Old May 16, 2016, 04:42 PM   #8
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 11,867
Quote:
To be repetitive, there's gotta be at least 2.
Correct, and the speculators I saw during the 1994, 2008, and 2013 panics were buying crates of lowers to sell. Given the extent to which the current administration has scrutinized the process, it wouldn't surprise me to see ATF agents trolling gun shows and grilling people.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old May 16, 2016, 05:23 PM   #9
g.willikers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 8,334
Since Mrs. Clinton has come out of the closet and openly stated her goals - (like adopting the "Australian Model"), there may be no more of a market here than there if she is elected and gets her way.
What then?
__________________
Lock the doors, they're coming in the windows.
g.willikers is offline  
Old May 16, 2016, 05:25 PM   #10
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Location: Native Texan, Washington Now
Posts: 4,880
I worry more about ammo again. I think there's enough new guns to satiate everyone's AR appetite.

The Craigslist ammo sellers are probably already stocking up.
One guy was always miraculously present when the local Walmart received its ammo shipments. Walmart sold Craigslist guy every drop of ammo that came in.

Everyone flocked to Craigslist guy for ammo.
__________________
Navin R. Johnson: "He hates these cans!!!! Stay away from the cans!!!!"
rickyrick is offline  
Old May 16, 2016, 05:29 PM   #11
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 17,438
I've said this before. DOJ sponsored research demonstrated that the AWB had no effect on crime rates.

Gun folks said - Hurray, bans are stupid.

The researchers and the antigun folks said it was because:

1. New guns with cosmetic changes were available and equally lethal.
2. The existing stocks met demand through resale.

Thus, a new law would have to ban new semi guns (no cosmetic run arounds), plus confiscate old ones and mags.

If that happened, you are out of luck with your investment. See a broker about good funds to invest in.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old May 16, 2016, 05:30 PM   #12
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Location: Native Texan, Washington Now
Posts: 4,880
What throws a wrench in the plans is this: Clinton seems to be more vocally anti second amendment than any other leading candidate that I can recall... My be my mind playing tricks.
__________________
Navin R. Johnson: "He hates these cans!!!! Stay away from the cans!!!!"
rickyrick is offline  
Old May 16, 2016, 05:38 PM   #13
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 17,438
You will make more money if you get a second job for a few months.

Let's not go political. I think the question has been answered as it has been on many other forums.

Anybody want to volunteer on how they bought a panic AR and found it is now worth nowhere what it costs them?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old May 16, 2016, 06:12 PM   #14
NateKirk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2013
Location: Detroit
Posts: 248
Quote:
Frankly, if a small percentage of the panic speculators would instead throw a few bucks to a pro-gun organization, or if they'd engage in the most minimal of communication with their legislators, maybe we wouldn't have to worry about potential bans, huh?
My thoughts exactly. If you want an AR then buy one. If you just want to buy one because you think they wont be available later I'd say spend the money on ammo or other things, like a contribution. I think the NRA has a payment plan for their life membership.

Also I found this article. http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...d-investm.aspx
If the chart accompanying it is accurate it would take some pretty good timing to make a profit, as others have suggested. I think the main problem would be selling the guns quick enough.
__________________
“Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".”

― --Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by NateKirk; May 16, 2016 at 06:17 PM.
NateKirk is offline  
Old May 16, 2016, 06:31 PM   #15
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Location: Native Texan, Washington Now
Posts: 4,880
Sorry bout the politics.

My story is the inverse.


Had some light interest in ARs in the last two panics. In the time since, I loosened up to the useful nature of ARs. I had been slightly leaning against them.

Mostly the fault of TFL, I learned that I could build them to suit my needs and activities. Also allows for a side hobby of shopping for parts and assembly.

I spent 2014 and a good portion of 2015 acquiring AR parts.... Not for investment or gain, just wanted my niche AR rifles for my activities.

There is some other wants, 300bo other calibers. Would like one more lower, but I can live without them
__________________
Navin R. Johnson: "He hates these cans!!!! Stay away from the cans!!!!"
rickyrick is offline  
Old May 16, 2016, 07:08 PM   #16
Joe_Pike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 30, 2010
Posts: 1,247
Quote:
If it's profit one seeks, guns are a terrible investment.
Well, yes and no. I have bought several guns over time that I picked up because I wanted them. Over the years they have gone up a fair amount in value, in fact more so than some other investments if I were to sell them. I still own them and will for a while, but at some point I will sell them because I have no heirs to leave them to. I didn't buy them as an investment, but it kind of ended up being a small one.

So, buy what you like and what you are interested in and if they end up being worth a considerable amount more than what you paid for them great. If not, then you had the pleasure of owning and using them anyway.
__________________
Stay Groovy
Joe_Pike is offline  
Old May 16, 2016, 07:17 PM   #17
Targa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2014
Posts: 615
Quote:
Thus, a new law would have to ban new semi guns (no cosmetic run arounds), plus confiscate old ones and mags
The first part I could see as a real possibility. The confiscation of old ones and mags? Not going to happen. With that said, I do agree that reselling a currently banned rifle will be an issue, one that I hadn't given much thought to mainly because my intention is not to sell but to have a particular firearm added to my collection while still attainable, hence why I picked up a Saiga IZ132, try to find one of those NIB now without paying through the nose.
As for price, there is going to be another gun scare and there is going to be another mad dash for whatever people can get their hands on. If there isn't it is only because November, against the odds, turned out in our favor. Sorry about the political nature of that Glenn but politics is absolutely the only reason we are discussing this at all.

Last edited by Targa; May 16, 2016 at 07:23 PM.
Targa is offline  
Old May 16, 2016, 08:08 PM   #18
terzmo
Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2012
Posts: 70
She wants to make all black guns and any semi auto's totally illegal in the US so investing in them might be worthless.
terzmo is offline  
Old May 16, 2016, 08:13 PM   #19
4runnerman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,577
I have all the guns I need. Now I am just buying Components. I don't want anything to stop me from my weekend shooting fun. I would have to go back to fishing or something
__________________
NRA Certified RSO
NwCP- Performance Isn't Optional
4runnerman is offline  
Old May 16, 2016, 09:55 PM   #20
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 17,438
No pure politics, or we close.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old May 17, 2016, 07:08 AM   #21
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
I've said this before. DOJ sponsored research demonstrated that the AWB had no effect on crime rates.

The researchers and the antigun folks said it was because:

1. New guns with cosmetic changes were available and equally lethal.
2. The existing stocks met demand through resale.

Even if there was a complete ban on semi-automatic rifles with a complete confiscation of them from the private sector, I doubt it would have much effect on the crime rate. I think the use of "Assault" weapons in crimes is less than 1% of the time or around 1% for juvenile offenders.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

To get that full 1% reduction in the crime rate from a complete ban of "Assault" weapons, those criminals would somehow magically stop their criminal activities
ATN082268 is offline  
Old May 17, 2016, 09:02 AM   #22
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 9,611
1. Drums, Hi-Cap mags, AR Barrels, Glock Barrels, threaded barrels, trigger systems.
2. SCAR, CZ Bren,
3. Aug or Tavor
4. Handguns with capacities greater than 15
5. Handguns that fire rifle cartridges.

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.
Skans is offline  
Old May 17, 2016, 09:39 AM   #23
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 6,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
...the speculators I saw during the 1994, 2008, and 2013 panics were buying crates of lowers to sell. Given the extent to which the current administration has scrutinized the process, it wouldn't surprise me to see ATF agents trolling gun shows and grilling people.
I recall a FFL telling me about an ATF audit during which the ATF agent was scrutinizing the FFL's bound book, finding nothing really out of line, until the agent's attention was piqued by an entry for a buyer who transferred several dozen identical AR lowers in a single transaction.

I personally believe that the ATF maintains informal lists of such folks. Don't count on staying under their radar.

My original post about buying lowers was meant to emphasize that they would be for potential personal use, not solely for speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATN082268
Even if there was a complete ban on semi-automatic rifles with a complete confiscation of them from the private sector, I doubt it would have much effect on the crime rate.
This time it won't be about the crime rate. It will be about stopping mass shootings by terrorists and the mentally unstable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skans
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.
Agreed, and additionally, I don't think the political will exists for confiscation, at least not in the short term. I think it's a bridge too far.

I expect that the next ban will revolve around 100% registration coupled with regulating AWs like Prohibited firearms are regulated in Canada, i.e. a registered owner can keep what he has and buy/sell from/to other pre-existing owners under certain conditions, but the registry will be closed to new owners and people who get rid of all their existing registered AWs, and upon death of the registered owner, the AWs must be deactivated or destroyed. Other than the few AWs illegally squirreled away in closets or buried, the pool of AW owners will eventually dwindle to nothing.

In the shorter term, registered AWs may balloon in value similar to the way transferable machine guns have, as rich registered collectors drive the values up. However, I wouldn't count on this happening, and it may take decades.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old May 17, 2016, 10:38 AM   #24
tirod
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2009
Posts: 1,652
First, there is no presumption that Ms Clinton is an automatic win. She is not even the party's nominated candidate, and Mr Sanders is campaigning to have a say in the party's platform. It won't be all her agenda going forward.

As President the current holder has proven that no, no bans can be unilaterally accomplished. It's illegal and outside the scope of office. It presumes that Congress and the Courts would be powerless to intervene - and don't make the mistake they won't. They ENJOY the opportunity to slap down a sitting President, especially one who serves them up a easy hit. Mr. Obama did nothing more than demonstrate exactly what he could do best - jawbone about it. Congress wasn't biting, and if anything, the trend by state legislatures is to increase the 2A by overturning restrictions. We've gone from just a few states issuing CCW permits to nearly the same number with Constitutional Carry.

Just supposing there is by some illegal and unConstitutional act a ban or attempt to seize the firearms of the American People? Ms. Clinton did say that the Australian gun turn in was something to consider - note carefully her choice of words. She lives with the utterance of nuance - she did NOT say we should - or even could - do the same. It was voter bait to her constituents, same as Obama's tearful suggestions. It very much IS politics for home consumption. A ban or turn in? How is that working in CA or NY? Its a major failure and exactly why passing a law the people don't respect is foolish. Even the AWB didn't affect the guns already in the hands of owners, they were ALL grandfathered. It only affected new gun sales.

Even trying to go house to house to search for them? More poppycock, there aren't enough cops and military to even attempt it and it would take years. Gun owners aren't going to wait their turn to give up their guns when it might be months down the road. They have, are now, and will refuse, just the way they are in CA and NY state. The government can demand, but the people are not cooperating, and there aren't enough camps to house 45% of the American population. Those camps would also house about half of the LEO's and military, too, as many in those organizations privately express just how far they are not willing to support an illegal government act.

Nope, the only ones looking forward to another panic are those ignoring the law, imputing some kind of dictatorial powers to the President, and quite casual with their understanding that our government has THREE branches who vy for control but which only have 1/3 of the power.

For those of us who didn't sleep thru American Government in high school, take my word for it, the system is working.

Look forward to more freedom - National Reciprocity in concealed carry is just few votes away and the effort is a planned annual submittal to Congress. The '34 NFA is now under question for even being in the statutes with specific issues under attack, such as suppressors. And the ingenious mechanical artistry of enterprising shooters have demonstrated the financial viability of selling binary triggers - which sidesteps the ban on full auto and the closing of the registry thru the Hatch Act. AWB in CA or NY? No problem - disable the gas tube, add a pump forend and you have an AR with detachable mag almost visually identical to the self loading version.

Basically, it's a battle of those who try to repress us and those of us who say, "Don't tell me I can't get it." Switchblade law? Ok, Spyderco Hole or thumbstud with assisted opening, and voila, a one handed knife. There's the spirit of America - make a law and we will get around it.

It presumes with all the other problems that the next President inherits - the VA scandals, the ATF and it's gun runner scheme that has killed government agents, the TSA debacle and how it's useless security theatre handled by people never even screened for prior offenses, the EPA ignoring West Virginia coal mining while damaging Colorado waterways and poisoning the people of Flint, MI. Add an national meltdown by banning guns to all that, while ignoring ISIS, too?

Not Going To Happen. The White House Staff has a graduation ceremony on the schedule that day, it's time to get on the helicopter Ms President.
tirod is offline  
Old May 17, 2016, 11:22 AM   #25
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Location: Native Texan, Washington Now
Posts: 4,880
It will happen on local and state level, it already has.

Governors will give offerings in exchange for funds.

The thing about a total ban: we will turn them in. It's unlikely that a total ban would happen but the vast majority of us would pack them up and turn them in to stay legal. No civil war, only compliance
__________________
Navin R. Johnson: "He hates these cans!!!! Stay away from the cans!!!!"
rickyrick is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2015 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.28225 seconds with 9 queries