Sub-Guns Barrett 82A1 talk about price Gouging

[Johnny Rotten]

WOW..that's a 10k gun

http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/index.cgi?db=nonnfafirearms&website=&language=&session_key=&search_and_display_db_button=on&results_format=long&db_id=5593&query=retrieval

[TGO David]

From what I've seen lately, a 100% markup isn't unusual.  SIG 716's were retailing at $1800 about a month ago and now they're fetching $3500-5000 on GunBroker.

 

Someone is likely to pay it.

[LI0NSFAN]

[quote name="TGO David" post="893536" timestamp="1358946164"]From what I've seen lately, a 100% markup isn't unusual.  SIG 716's were retailing at $1800 about a month ago and now they're fetching $3500-5000 on GunBroker.   Someone is likely to pay it.[/quote] Sweet now I have a 1k glock.

[TGO David]

Sweet now I have a 1k glock.

 

In theory.

[BryanP]

The real question is do you think the market will subside or not?  I paid $300 for my SAR-1 several years ago.  From what I'm seeing, if I find a sucker I could probably get triple that with no problem whatsoever, possibly more. But then I'm stuck wondering if I'll be able to replace it when/if the market finally does rebound.

Edited January 23, 2013 by BryanP

[LI0NSFAN]

[quote name="BryanP" post="893570" timestamp="1358949316"]The real question is do you think the market will subside or not?  I paid $300 for my SAR-1 several years ago.  From what I'm seeing, if I find a sucker I could probably get triple that with no problem whatsoever, possibly more. But then I'm stuck wondering if I'll be able to replace it when/if the market finally does rebound.[/quote] Replacement is exactly why I won't sell anything right now. We will never see early 2012 prices again, I don't want to replace guns for more than what I bought them for just a year earlier.

[1gewehr]

I love watching you folks getting bent out of shape over high ASKING prices.  So what?!  I can ask $200,000 for my beat up old Ruger .22 pistol if I want.  And if somebody actually buys it, I will be a VERY happy camper.   :rofl:  And everyone here will laugh about how somebody was foolish enough to pay all of that money for an ordinary Ruger .22.  This is exactly the same.

 

Unless we have a sudden infestation of rabid elephants somewhere, I sincerely doubt that anyone is going to find themselves feeling a need to buy a $20,000 Barrett .50. :squint:

[TGO David]

Honestly after talking with several other people who are in tune with such things, and after doing more research on my own, I think that the market for rifles is going to equalize somewhat within the next 4-8 months.

 

What I think won't equalize anytime soon and will only get worse is availability of ammo and reloading supplies.  The general consensus among people who know about such things seems to be that Attorney General Eric Holder doesn't see Obama having much chance in snuffing the Second Amendment.  However the Second Amendment does not specifically reference ammunition therefore that's where the Administration will turn it's sights in order to castrate us.

 

As one person put it to me the other day, the likely place they will start is by using OSHA to shutter the doors on ammunition plants in the US and then by passing new laws forbidding the importation of ammo from outside the US.  Consider that a lot of what Winchester makes is already produced off-shore and you can see where this would get ugly real fast.

 

 

Cliffs Notes:

• Cost and availability of rifles and mags will stabilize soon enough
• Cost and availability of the ammo to feed them will be ugly.  Very ugly.
• The Second Amendment will effectively be limited to those people who can afford to participate.

[BimmerFreak]

For sale:

1 each 50 caliber bullet (New, unfired)

 

$600.00  or trade for a Glock 23

[TGO David]

For sale:

1 each 50 caliber bullet (New, unfired)

 

$600.00  or trade for a Glock 23

 

Pics of 50 caliber bullet?

[BimmerFreak]

Pics of 50 caliber bullet?

 

[East_TN_Patriot]

I think that ammunition is assumed to be part of keeping and bearing arms, and if I'm not mistaken, there has been case law confirming such.  I'll have to do some digging.


NEW INFO:

 

In the case Herrington v. United States (2009), a federal appellate court found that Washington, DC's ban on ammunition was a violation of the 2nd Amendment and cited the Heller (2008) case as precedent for the decision.
 

 

In Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for purposes of self-defense.   The Court subsequently held this right to be “fundamental”-necessary to our system of ordered liberty and deeply rooted in the history and traditions of our Nation-and hence incorporated in the concept of due process (and enforceable against state as well as federal limitations on the possession and use of “arms”).¹⁴  The right to keep and bear arms is presumptively enjoyed by all American citizens (“the people” ¹⁵ ), though some individuals may be disqualified from exercising it because they cannot satisfy, or have not complied with, valid regulatory conditions.¹⁶  In view of the fundamental nature of the right, however, any restrictions on its exercise are subject to heightened judicial scrutiny.¹⁷

 

The Second Amendment right is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” ¹⁸  But it does encompass a right to keep ordinary handguns in the home for use in self-defense.  Heller specifically held that “the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” ¹⁹  The latter prohibition, derived from a District statute requiring lawfully-possessed firearms to be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device,” ²⁰ was unconstitutional because it made it “impossible for citizens to use [their handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” ²¹

In neither Heller nor McDonald did the Supreme Court directly address restrictions on the possession of ammunition per se.  (The District's requirement that lawfully-maintained firearms be kept unloaded was not challenged in Heller.)   Nonetheless, from the Court's reasoning, it logically follows that the right to keep and bear arms extends to the possession of handgun ammunition in the home;  for if such possession could be banned (and not simply regulated), that would make it “impossible for citizens to use [their handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” ²²  By the same token, given the obvious connection between handgun ammunition and the right protected by the Second Amendment, we are hard-pressed to see how a flat ban on the possession of such ammunition in the home could survive heightened scrutiny of any kind.   We therefore conclude that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to possess ammunition in the home that is coextensive with the right to possess a usable handgun there.   The government has not taken issue with that conclusion.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/dc-court-of-appeals/1543809.html

 

Obviously, the ruling is quite limited, but it has set the legal precedent stating that possessing ammunition is an understood part of the Second Amendment because firearms are not firearms without ammunition to use in them.  The ruling also says that the government can regulate ammunition, which means that new regulations will have to be decided as they come up do decide which ones are constitutional and which ones are not.  I would expect that excessive taxes on ammunition would be deemed unconstitutional.  I would also expect that excessive regulations targeting the ammunition manufacturers would be as well.  Also, it is important to remember that the military is one of the largest consumers of ammunition, so they would be cutting their own throat if they start shuttering up ammunition factories, unless they started manufacturing their own.  I'm not saying we shouldn't be very diligent on this issue, because I think this is where gun-grabbers will go next if they think they can't regulate the guns themselves.  Fortunately, it appears that the legal foundation has been laid to assure that our access to ammunition will not be completely cut off.

Also, I get the point about saying the Second Amendment "will effectively be limited to those people who can afford to participate," but isn't that the way it has always been?  Rights are protected from government infringement, but that doesn't mean we are all guaranteed to access to a weapon if we can't afford it or choose not to save up our money to buy one. Short of saying that the government is obligated to provide everyone with a firearm and ammunition, there is no way to guarantee that everyone who wants to keep and bear arms will be able to do so.  For most, it's always been an issue of what type of weapon can I afford, and do I use my money on it or something else.  Heck, most of us have more than one firearm, so it's not like there are many out there who are begging for a reliable firearm of any sort who can't get one.  I'm afraid that for the foreseeable future, the days of easily accessible and affordable ammunition are gone, but if the market supports more ammunition production, I would think that profit-minded manufacturers will expand production capacity and alleviate the shortage.

Edited January 23, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[TGO David]

I think that ammunition is assumed to be part of keeping and bearing arms, and if I'm not mistaken, there has been case law confirming such.  I'll have to do some digging.

 

Dig into it then.  I've not been able to find anything.

[Johnny Rotten]

For sale:

1 each 50 caliber bullet (New, unfired)

 

$600.00  or trade for a Glock 23

I got 300 rounds so there worth $180,000, I quit, I'm headed home.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I don't think they will try to ban ammunition but they will make it so expensive that people won't want to buy it. David, DLM37015, has had a lot of extra regulations added to his business by this administration. That as well as new rules saying surplus ammunition and components can no longer be sold to the public. Those things did happen in the last 4-6 months. This adds costs to him, and other dealers, and eventually our costs are going to have to go up in order for the dealers to stay in business.

 

I can see the next step be taxing ammunition or components as a "sin" tax or try to justify the additional tax as a means to pay for all those injuries and killings to those "poor inner city youth" that are at the top of those being killed by ammunition. Kind of like they did to cigarettes back when they were newest "evil". Imagine buying a box of ammunition and seeing some sort of grotesque gunshot wound on the side like they do or did for cigarettes. Or a warning label stating "The contents of this box can kill or maim or be used in a suicide". The cost of adding those warning labels would increase the cost of ammunition.

 

It is well within the President's right to use EO to ban the importation of ammunition. Not that big of a deal to the AR guys but for the AK guys things are about to get really expensive.

 

We are up against a tough political machine right now and we cannot let our guard down. Even when it seems like our guns are not the center of attention we cannot relax because those who want to take them away never are relaxed.

 

Dolomite

[Johnny Rotten]

I don't think they will try to ban ammunition but they will make it so expensive that people won't want to buy it. David, DLM37015, has had a lot of extra regulations added to his business by this administration. That as well as new rules saying surplus ammunition and components can no longer be sold to the public. Those things did happen in the last 4-6 months. This adds costs to him, and other dealers, and eventually our costs are going to have to go up in order for the dealers to stay in business.

 

I can see the next step be taxing ammunition or components as a "sin" tax or try to justify the additional tax as a means to pay for all those injuries and killings to those "poor inner city youth" that are at the top of those being killed by ammunition. Kind of like they did to cigarettes back when they were newest "evil". Imagine buying a box of ammunition and seeing some sort of grotesque gunshot wound on the side like they do or did for cigarettes. Or a warning label stating "The contents of this box can kill or maim or be used in a suicide". The cost of adding those warning labels would increase the cost of ammunition.

 

It is well within the President's right to use EO to ban the importation of ammunition. Not that big of a deal to the AR guys but for the AK guys things are about to get really expensive.

 

We are up against a tough political machine right now and we cannot let our guard down. Even when it seems like our guns are not the center of attention we cannot relax because those who want to take them away never are relaxed.

 

Dolomite

Unless you use steel case Wolf or ?? in a AR

[Smith]

I don't think they will try to ban ammunition but they will make it so expensive that people won't want to buy it. David, DLM37015, has had a lot of extra regulations added to his business by this administration. That as well as new rules saying surplus ammunition and components can no longer be sold to the public. Those things did happen in the last 4-6 months. This adds costs to him, and other dealers, and eventually our costs are going to have to go up in order for the dealers to stay in business.

 

I can see the next step be taxing ammunition or components as a "sin" tax or try to justify the additional tax as a means to pay for all those injuries and killings to those "poor inner city youth" that are at the top of those being killed by ammunition. Kind of like they did to cigarettes back when they were newest "evil". Imagine buying a box of ammunition and seeing some sort of grotesque gunshot wound on the side like they do or did for cigarettes. Or a warning label stating "The contents of this box can kill or maim or be used in a suicide". The cost of adding those warning labels would increase the cost of ammunition.

 

It is well within the President's right to use EO to ban the importation of ammunition. Not that big of a deal to the AR guys but for the AK guys things are about to get really expensive.

 

We are up against a tough political machine right now and we cannot let our guard down. Even when it seems like our guns are not the center of attention we cannot relax because those who want to take them away never are relaxed.

 

Dolomite

 

That would kinda be a great selling point! ;)

 

However, I unfortunately agree with the rest. I hope the Heller decisions and the SC rulings hold up on the ammo speculation but who knows right now. I do foresee AK stuff getting expensive and scarce for a few years. People don't realize but the Russians only make guns/ammo AFTER they get all the money up front and no importer here in the US wants to tie up millions they know they won't get back if the POTUS decides to ban imports, which he is likely to do. AR's I can see being dirt cheap by late spring and AK's being the premium weapon. Odd how things may completely flip upside down. :down:

[BryanP]

I don't think they will try to ban ammunition but they will make it so expensive that people won't want to buy it.

 

"We won't make it so that black people can't vote.  We'll just put arbitrary tests and taxes in place."

Edited January 23, 2013 by BryanP

[JohnC]

I got 300 rounds so there worth $180,000, I quit, I'm headed home.

If it is per bullet, I'm RICH!!!! GOOOOLLDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have 500 API's and just over 200rds of loaded API's. :D

[JohnC]

Pics of 50 caliber bullet?

:D

[JohnC]

If they got unconstitutional Obamacare through SCOTUS, the past Clinton AWB, etc., I don't put anything out of bounds for the current administration.

So don't expect anything to be safe just because of a court case and the constitution because that doesn't mean crap to these left-wing extremists in power.

[atlas3025]

So if the prices people were willing to pay WEREN'T ridiculously high...how many of you would be willing to part with your AR right now?  Would any of you sell your mid range AR's right now for $1000?  I bet most of you aren't willing to sell at double that.  Because of the uncertainty surrounding the legality of our toys, most will only sell them if the price is very high. 

 

And that is the reason the prices are so high.  As long as their is a doubt that you will be able to replace your rifle/ammo, you aren't going to let it go cheap.  Since you aren't going to let it go cheap, people who want them have to pay more to get them.  It is so simple, and for some reason many of us are baffled by that. 

 

Prices will return to normal when supply begins to outweigh demand, just like it was a year ago.  But supply isn't likely to catch up until the doubt regarding legislation subsides. 

 

And let this be a lesson...even if we get past this with no significant legislation, all it will take to put the market right back into this situation is the next mass shooting, which will happen sooner or later, and will come without warning.  Keeping that in mind, it will take a long time for prices to return to what we were used to.

 

You've got 4 more years of fear and doubt.  I have sold a couple of my rifles during this mess, and at the time felt like I did pretty well on them...but I am already starting to regret it. 

[Guest summertime27]

That would kinda be a great selling point! ;)

 

However, I unfortunately agree with the rest. I hope the Heller decisions and the SC rulings hold up on the ammo speculation but who knows right now. I do foresee AK stuff getting expensive and scarce for a few years. People don't realize but the Russians only make guns/ammo AFTER they get all the money up front and no importer here in the US wants to tie up millions they know they won't get back if the POTUS decides to ban imports, which he is likely to do. AR's I can see being dirt cheap by late spring and AK's being the premium weapon. Odd how things may completely flip upside down. :down:

 

 

Highly unlikely that AR's will be cheap again by late spring.....this year? Availability of AR's won't even come back by late spring....of this year!

 

Would be nice though!

Edited January 24, 2013 by summertime27

[Spook]

[quote name="TGO David" post="893581" timestamp="1358949726"]Honestly after talking with several other people who are in tune with such things, and after doing more research on my own, I think that the market for rifles is going to equalize somewhat within the next 4-8 months.   What I think won't equalize anytime soon and will only get worse is availability of ammo and reloading supplies.  The general consensus among people who know about such things seems to be that Attorney General Eric Holder doesn't see Obama having much chance in snuffing the Second Amendment.  However the Second Amendment does not specifically reference ammunition therefore that's where the Administration will turn it's sights in order to castrate us.   As one person put it to me the other day, the likely place they will start is by using OSHA to shutter the doors on ammunition plants in the US and then by passing new laws forbidding the importation of ammo from outside the US.  Consider that a lot of what Winchester makes is already produced off-shore and you can see where this would get ugly real fast.     [b]Cliffs Notes[/b][b]:[/b] [LIST][*]Cost and availability of rifles and mags will stabilize soon enough[/*] [*]Cost and availability of the ammo to feed them will be ugly.  Very ugly.[/*] [*]The Second Amendment will effectively be limited to those people who can afford to participate.[/*] [/LIST][/quote] Tis nothing more than speculation at this point. But there won't be any anti-guns laws passed with this House. That's why the 2014 midterms are so important, to keep the balance of power. Banning ammo under Executive Order is also highly unlikely since it is on the fringes of EO power, otherwise think he would have already tried it... part of that taking advantage of a crisis thing. But I admit these are tense times and, honestly, I don't have overwhelming confidence in conservative politicians to fully back 2nd amendment issues. The administration also seems behind that UN treaty that I don't think holds any water legally in the U.S. But their goal may be more long term, to chip away, but the longer it takes the less chance of them succeeding in their agenda, imho.

[JohnC]

So if the prices people were willing to pay WEREN'T ridiculously high...how many of you would be willing to part with your AR right now?  Would any of you sell your mid range AR's right now for $1000?  I bet most of you aren't willing to sell at double that.  Because of the uncertainty surrounding the legality of our toys, most will only sell them if the price is very high. 
 
And that is the reason the prices are so high.  As long as their is a doubt that you will be able to replace your rifle/ammo, you aren't going to let it go cheap.  Since you aren't going to let it go cheap, people who want them have to pay more to get them.  It is so simple, and for some reason many of us are baffled by that. 
 
Prices will return to normal when supply begins to outweigh demand, just like it was a year ago.  But supply isn't likely to catch up until the doubt regarding legislation subsides. 
 
And let this be a lesson...even if we get past this with no significant legislation, all it will take to put the market right back into this situation is the next mass shooting, which will happen sooner or later, and will come without warning.  Keeping that in mind, it will take a long time for prices to return to what we were used to.
 
You've got 4 more years of fear and doubt.  I have sold a couple of my rifles during this mess, and at the time felt like I did pretty well on them...but I am already starting to regret it. 

I don't care if my 5.56 and 308 AR's go for $10k each today, I'm not selling. I don't buy to resale anyway. :up: