Posted on 11/22/2008 6:57:45 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The election of the nation's first democratic president in eight years and the country's economic turmoil is prompting more people to take up arms, according to local gun rights supporters.
The promoter of the West's largest gun and ammunition expo said that attendance at some shows across the nation has increased by 50 percent to 100 percent. He expected attendance of about 12,000 for this weekend's show at the South Towne Expo Center in Sandy, compared to a typical crowd of around 9,000. The show will begin at 9 a.m. Saturday and Sunday.
"Sales at shows, particularly in the area of ammunition, semi-automatic so-called assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, is probably up 50 to 100 percent," added Bob Templeton, president of the National Association of Arms Shows and promoter of the Crossroads of the West Gun Show.
He added that sales have increased despite the fact that high demand has doubled prices for some weapons in recent months.
Templeton, who said that he puts on 52 Crossroads of the West shows annually, said the number of vendors requesting tables at this show jumped 20 percent for this weekend. He also said that he is getting many more inquiries regarding his other shows in Nevada, California and Arizona.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation reported getting more than 374,000 requests for background checks on gun buyers for the week of Nov. 3 to 9, a 49 percent increase over the same period last year.
Templeton and other local gun-rights supporters attributed the increased interest in guns to the election of Barack Obama as president and the slumping economy.
"There is a concern on the part of people who are worried they are going to be taxed or regulated more strictly than we have been," Templeton said.
(Excerpt) Read more at deseretnews.com ...
People are arming up in case they need to defend their freedom.
If Obama somehow makes weapons or ammo unavailable or difficult to purchase, I know a LOT of otherwise law abiding citizens (myself included) who will knowingly and willingly break laws and purchase illegal weapons and ammo. Weapons trading will become big business in this country.
I am stockpiling right now though.
Your graphic clearly illustrates the need to do so.
All these gun buyers probably already have a bunch of guns and ammo by now
It is just overkill
Perhaps you should look into a mirror before making such an absurd statement and implying that other folks lack even more knowledge than yourself.
Automatic weapons (machine guns) ARE sold to the general public. One must simply pass a criminal background check, pay a $200 transfer (excise) tax and pay the price. Please Google "Machine guns for sale" and report back.
The price can be quite high. Good old supply and demand in action.
I can't imagine how they got that idea after good `ol Slow Joe promised us that The One was not going to take away anyone’s shotgun or rifle...
Obama supported local handgun bans in the Chicago area by opposing any allowance for self-defense. Obama opposed an Illinois bill (SB 2165, 2004) that would have created an "affirmative defense" for a person who used a prohibited firearm in self-defense in his own home.
As FactCheck notes, the bill was provoked by a case where a Wilmette, Ill. homeowner shot an intruder in self-defense in his home; the homeowner's handgun was banned by a town ordinance. (After the U.S. Supreme Court found Washington, D.C.'s similar ban unconstitutional, Wilmette repealed the ordinance to avoid litigation.)
The legislation was very plainly worded, but as limited as its protection was, Obama voted against it in committee and on the floor:
It is an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if the individual who is charged with the violation used the firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another ...when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business.
If a person cannot use a handgun for self-defense in the home without facing criminal charges, self-defense with handguns in the home is effectively banned.
Even aside from SB 2165, Obama's support for a total handgun ban (see below) would be a crippling blow to defense in the home, since (as the Supreme Court recently affirmed) handguns are "the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family." (District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2818 (2008)).
FactCheck claim: Obama "did not ...vote to 'ban virtually all deer hunting ammunition."
FactCheck is wrong. Obama voted for an amendment by longtime ammunition ban advocate Sen. Edward Kennedy (S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397, Vote No. 217, July 29, 2005), which would have fundamentally changed the federal "armor piercing ammunition" law (18 U.S.C. ' 922(a)(7)), by banning any bullet that "may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines... to be capable of penetrating body armor" that "meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers."
Federal law currently bans bullets as "armor piercing" based upon the metals used in their construction, such as those made of steel and those that have heavy jackets. (18 U.S.C. ' 921(a)(17)). The Kennedy amendment would have fundamentally changed the law to add a ban on bullets on the basis of whether they penetrate the "minimum" level of body armor, regardless of the bullets' construction or the purposes for which they were designed (e.g., hunting).
Many bullets designed and intended for use in rifles (including hunting rifles) have, over the years, been used in special-purpose hunting and target handguns, thus they "may be used in a handgun."
The "minimum" level of body armor, Type I, only protects against the lowest-powered handgun cartridges. Any center-fire rifle used for hunting, target shooting, or any other purpose, and many handguns used for the same purposes, are capable of penetrating Type I armor, regardless of the design of the bullet.
Obama also said, on his 2003 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, that he would "support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons." (source) The rifles banned as "assault weapons" under the 1994 Clinton gun ban fire cartridges such as the .223 Remington and .308 Winchester - the same ammunition used in common hunting rifles.
It's true that in 2005, Sen. Kennedy denied his amendment would ban hunting ammunition. But in a floor debate on an identical amendment the previous year, Kennedy specifically denounced the .30-30 Winchester rifle cartridge, used by millions of deer hunters since 1895. "It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America," said Sen. Kennedy. (Congressional Record, 2/26/04, p. S1634.)
Isn't it FactCheck's job to be skeptical of politicians' claims, especially when the plain language says otherwise?
FactCheck claim: "Obama says he does not support any ... handgun ban and never has."
FactCheck is wrong. Obama has never disavowed his support for a handgun ban. On Obama's 1996 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, he clearly stated his support for "state legislation to ...ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." Although Obama first claimed he had not seen the survey, a later version appeared with his handwritten notes modifying some of the answers. But he didn't change any of his answers on gun issues, including the handgun ban.
FactCheck itself cites Obama's 2003 questionnaire to the same group. When asked again if he supported a handgun ban, he could simply have said, "No." Instead, as FactCheck notes, he "avoid[ed] a yes-or-no answer" by saying a ban on handguns "is not politically practicable," then stated his support for other restrictions.
The 1996 and 2003 positions are not at all contradictory. Many anti-gun groups, such as the Violence Policy Center and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, support total bans on handguns but also support lesser regulations that are more "politically practicable."
FactCheck claim: Saying Obama supports gun licensing is "misleading."
FactCheck is wrong. Obama's fancy election-year footwork - claiming he doesn't support licensing or registration because he doesn't think he "can get that done" - isn't enough to get around his clear support for handgun registration and licensing.
What's really misleading is the idea that handgun registration isn't really gun registration. Handguns are about one-third of the firearms owned in the United States, and American gun owners know better than to think registration schemes will end with any one kind of gun.
FactCheck claim: Saying Obama would appoint judges who agree with him is "unsupported."
This FactCheck claim is just strange. Don't most Americans expect that the President will appoint people who agree with him to all levels of the government? And putting all Obama's campaign rhetoric about "empathy" aside, why would judges be any different?
And on the larger issue of Obama's view of the Second Amendment, FactCheck once again takes Obama's spin at face value. While Obama now claims to embrace the Supreme Court's decision striking down the D.C. gun ban, he refused to sign an amicus brief stating that position to the Court. And when Washington, D.C. television reporter Leon Harris said to Obama, "You support the D.C. handgun ban and you've said that it's constitutional," Obama nodded - and again didn't disavow his support. (WJLA TV interview, 2/11/2008.)
And as for this...
The head of the Utah Sports Shooting Council said that the uncertainty in the economy is also influencing the number of people who are stocking up on firearms and ammunition.
Nice pipedream but I do not believe for a second that folks a buying everything they can get their hands on because of "uncertainty in the economy."
“What kind of idiot doesn’t know that automatic weapons are not sold to the general public? “
Yes, they are. Are you an idiot now for not knowing that?
Anyone can apply for a Class III transfer for an automatic weapon. They are expensive, but legal.
Do you have a ping list? If so, please add me.
Thanks,
panax
Last week in East Tennessee I paid $53 for a 50 rd box of Remington M1 Carbine soft point ammo. It was one of the shop’s last two boxes and the owner said that he did not know when he would get another shipment of any kind of ammunition. He was running out, and his suppliers were too.
That’s not the “general public”, that’s a Class III dealer, which was my point.
““What kind of idiot doesn’t know that automatic weapons are not sold to the general public? “”
Wrong, again. That is TO, read it: TO, the general public. You, I, and anyone else can buy a fully automatic weapon and we do not need to be a Class III dealer.
I think what he meant was that the general public cannot just walk into a gun shop and easily purchase a full-auto weapon. That is without first obtaining a Class 3 license. Anyone that knows firearm laws knows this. Don’t be so hard on him. He does very good work here in alerting we FReepers of absurd quotes from idiot authors about weapons.
In your own words from your profile page, “Folks with abundant knowledge and confidence often seem arrogant to those without.” couldn’t stand more true on your attack of 2ndDivisionVet.
No harsh feelings, I hope. There has never been a period in our history that gun owners should be uniting together and not bashing someone for your misinterpretation of his helpful posting.
All these gun buyers probably already have a bunch of guns and ammo by now
It is just overkill
“just overkill?” Of course! Why anyone ready to fight for their 2nd amendment rights is always guilty of overkill or paranoia. Or how about one of those old liberal favorites...they are just killers-in-waiting! Making the streets unsafe for “the rest of us.” And naturally these toothless trailer-travelers are just stockpiling more guns next to the hundreds they already own! You know, the supply down in the bomb shelter, next to the MREs and the old copies of “Bloody Militias” magazine! Well I’ll make a deal with you. You stockpile your “CHANGE” bumperstickers and I’ll take care of my supply of 9mm and 30 06 ammo.
Almost no bulk ammo at the gun show I went to last week.
SKS rifles now selling for $379 to $500 - more than double or triple the prices of just a couple years back. (not to mention $79 only 5-6 years ago)
Even used hunting rifles have doubled in price. Two years ago used 30-30 Marlins and Winchesters were going for $150-$165 at the gunshow. Now anything halfway decent is priced $300 - $350 and up.
Good condition Mosan-Nagants still available for $70 and plenty of new semi-auto pistols available from $169 up.
Sportsmansguide and most bulk ammo sellers are out of or backordering popular caliber ammo.
People are preparing for something a little more serious than gun registration and higher ammo taxes.
Huh? Please explain.
>Federal law currently bans bullets as “armor piercing” based upon the metals used in their construction, such as those made of steel and those that have heavy jackets. (18 U.S.C. ‘ 921(a)(17)). The Kennedy amendment would have fundamentally changed the law to add a ban on bullets on the basis of whether they penetrate the “minimum” level of body armor, regardless of the bullets’ construction or the purposes for which they were designed (e.g., hunting).<
AP rounds are normally for sale at the local gunshows here in Reno.
18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B)
Pay your $200 and you can buy Class III weapons.
No harsh feelings here. I just attempt to educate the ignorant, self-appointed gun and ammunition "experts" on this forum. They do a great disservice by disseminating misinformation, rumors and other drivel. And you might notice that they are the first to brand others as idiots.
I will accept the expert's apology after he looks in the mirror. So far, he has not responded, either public or private.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.