“A well regulated Militia, being necessary of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This
could be one of the most controversial sentences ever formed in the history of
the human language. It is easily recognized as the beloved, and utterly
loathed, 2nd Amendment. Many have read it, some understand it, and
many think they do. The combinations of interpretations are virtually endless,
and short of abortion of religion there are new things that spark more
contention between people. It is the foundation of so many political campaigns,
both nationally recognized and clandestine efforts.
The founding fathers drafted the Constitution and Bill of
Rights out of a desire to avoid the tyranny imposed on the colonies by England.
It is safe to assume they felt the need to protect the right to keep firearms
was important, as it is number 2 on the list. Essentially, it states the
government cannot be better armed than the public. That may sound like a far
out postulation, but not so much when you think it through. A well-regulated
militia is necessary for a free state’s people to defend themselves. If the
people cannot be armed in a reasonable manner then they cannot form a militia
to protect themselves from enemies, foreign and domestic.
Here’s where I need to throw in a disclaimer. This is my
theory on the 2nd Amendment. I’m no lawyer, social analyst, rights
activist, or know-it-all who would jam my opinion down someone’s throat. The
sad part is this part of American law is so complex by itself, and even more so
when intertwined with other laws and amendments, that few people can actually
make accurate sense of it. The so-called “common-sense gun laws” are seldom
anywhere near common-sense because it’s simply not that simple. Further, the
topic is so easy to misrepresent based on an individual’s own social and
political ideals. I’m not a fan of involving Skinflint Outdoors in political
matters. Yet here again is one of those dreaded moments when my own political
views will bleed through, so please read with caution and do your own homework.
Now, with my disclaimer done, let us proceed.
A well-functioning government
is charged with serving its citizenry, not the other way around. This is the
guiding principal our American government was built on, or at least we all like
to hope. Sadly, there’s a ton of evidence that the administration promising
change has forgotten that little point. As a result of this administrative
oversight we have seen threats on a number of occasions where firearms have
been targeted. Then we see the far left and far right advocates start barking
about gun laws in America. The funny thing is few of them really know what they
are even advocating for.
The far right advocates think they are protecting the right
to wear a Glock on their hip while the far left think they are working to keep
guns off the streets. The far right feels there should be no limits on firearms
in America, while the far left thinks people should only be allowed to own
muskets since that was all there was when the 2nd Amendment was
written. Neither side takes the time to read and realize the firearms are
simply the tools specified to protect the people. The 2nd Amendment
wasn’t drafted to protect guns, it was meant to protect freedom. We, as
American citizens, have the right to organize, outfit, and implement resistance
to an oppressive or threatening element on our soil.
Depending on the
school of thought you subscribe to, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t give
an individual the express right to have a gun. In a nut-shell, it can be argued
the founding fathers considered the right to have a gun a moot point, as
everybody had one and it was a basic right. They were more concerned with
providing a means for the citizenry to defend themselves from an oppressive
government or to assist in the event of a foreign invasion. So, by that
standard, it is fair to say every time you hear a politician, like Obama or
Clinton, talking about modifications to the 2nd Amendment you are
actually hearing them say they want to strip your rights to resist oppression.
It’s little more than a clandestine effort to secure control of people so they
have no choice but to bend to the will of the masters.
Thank God, there has been a shift in power with the recent
election. Whether you like Trump or hate him, the pendulum has swung in the
other direction. With the defeat of Hillary Clinton we can hear a collective
sigh of relief from the gun owners of America. We went from a fear-driving
movement threatening a targeted group of the population to seeing hope for the
future. The history we have lived in the past 4 to 8 years has left some with a
bitter taste in their mouths. People have felt threatened and have responded to
that fear by buying more guns than ever before. Now that fear has abided to a
degree and we can see a definite shift in the gun market.
After reading and seeing all this unfold it was a relief for
all gun owners to see some light at the end of the proverbial tunnel. It was
with high spirits I followed this light to a local gun show to see what I could
acquire for my collection. However, when I got to the show I was shocked and
horrified at what I found. After hours of walking around the cheapest item I
could fine was $200, and that was a pellet gun. My skinflint,
so-tight-I-squeak, working class heart sunk to see what seemed to be an
increase in gun prices. Sulking, I went home and immediately set out to
discover what the hell happened. Here are some interesting points I found to
pass along.
Typically, retail prices can vary based on a plethora of
factors. Time of year, location, supply and demand, and social atmosphere can
all impact how much you will pay. It’s almost impossible to accurately predict
what will happen across the board. In the case of the gun market, we have seen
an approximate 16% drop in share prices for large gun manufacturers. Likewise,
overall sales of guns have dropped after the election. Simply stated, people
aren’t as scared anymore. Consumers don’t feel the need to stockpile firearms
now that the looming threat that was Hillary Clinton has been mike-dropped off
the Presidential stage.
Supply and demand is one element I most commonly heard
sighted as the reason behind the fluctuation in gun prices. Wikipedia defines
supply and demand as “In microeconomics, supply and demand is an economic model
of price determination in a market. It postulates that in a competitive market,
the unit price for a particular good, or other traded item such as labor or
liquid financial assets, will vary until it settles at a point where the
quantity demand (at the current Price) will equal the quantity supplied (at the
current price), resulting in an economic equilibrium for price and quantity
transacted.” Basically, you need 1,000 units and you have 500, so the price
goes up. Or, on the other side, you have 1,000 units and need 500, so the price
goes down.
What many neglect to mention is the rules of supply and
demand can change as they are applied to different specialty markets. Such
markets, like the overall gun market, are easily impacted with minimal effort
from the political elite. Still, the
results of these efforts are complicated because of the wide variety of
configurations of guns. For example, Obama threatens to ban “assault type”
weapons, so the manufacturers begin to market cheaper models of these weapons
so they can earn revenue from the consumer on a budget. This drives the price
of these targeted weapons down. Meanwhile, Obama signs a law limiting imports
from Russia, with a clandestine clause covering the import of antique
Mosin-Nagant rifles. As a result, the price on these rifles jumps by 250%. At
the same time the price of other, similar antique rifles goes down as people
are spending all their money on the cheaper semi-automatic rifles.
Sadly, the President who promised change used all the
tragedies during his time to push an agenda that did nothing to protect the
people. Every time the American people watched a tragedy unfold on the news we
grew to expect the ensuing anti-gun propaganda that followed. Every time we saw
such speeches there was a general consumer panic, and sales rose. This created
a buyers-market. Though there was a higher demand, there was not such a
shortage of buyers. Therefore, it wasn’t such a big deal if someone wanted to
buy a gun and the dealer wouldn’t offer a good price. There were plenty of
dealers making money on the volume of sales that they could offer firearms at a
lower price.
The Obama-gun-grabbing-machine also created ripples in the
market that catered to people looking for a bargain. As his initiative gained
momentum there was an increase over the last several years of companies
offering “assault type” weapons at a budget price. This place in the gun market
was created specifically for consumers on a tighter budget wanting to
stock-pile these weapons. Likewise, this focus on “assault type” weapons meant
there was less interest (and hence a lower sticker price) in obsolete military
pieces. But, as with so many other things, these trends changed as soon as we
had a new President elect.
When a major event happens (like the election) that could
influence a market it creates a time to encounter less resistance to price
changes. Simply stated, the beginning of 2017 is a good time to raise prices. Here
we can see the shift to a sellers-market. While sales are down a higher price
can generate more revenue and set a precedent that can be used throughout the
rest of the year. Compared to the buyers-market, where there is no shortage of
people willing to spend money or volume dealers willing to accommodate the
budget of the average consumer, who still battle the hardships of our recent
recession. The ebb and flow of the market is ultimately dictated by the
entrepreneurs who have the best ability to react to social changes. All the
smaller businesses simply have to follow suit in passing the pricing standards
on to the consumer.
We can’t talk about gun purchases without pointing out the
obvious variables. New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and California are
sure-fire places that can throw off any theories about anything to do with
firearms. There’s seldom any point in looking at these locales and their
statistics, but they are relevant as there is always someone who mentions them.
What can reasonably be said is not much changes in these areas as the laws are
harsh, and that rigid approach makes for a social theater where few things change.
The specific dealer can also play a big part in the prices
of firearms. I knew of a less-than-scrupulous dealer who would often buy
wholesale firearms and price the living crap out of them. His philosophy was he
had enough money to sit on the investment. Sure, they may not be worth what he
was asking at the time, but they would be someday. This approach allowed this
“gentleman” to increase his profit margins, at an albeit slower pace. While his
approach to making money can be applauded, he is the embodiment of what any
scale of firearm investor would want to avoid. Be wary of such a business
person as they are masters of reading the market. The more money someone like
this makes the less money your investment is worth.
So, who determines the price of guns? Was it Obama? Did
Hillary Clinton have something to do with it? Is Donald Trump going to change
the prices? Who sets the trends? The questions are limitless and difficult to
answer. When I followed the afore mentioned ray of light I was certain the market
would be more hospitable to the folks on a budget. But, the more I searched for
answers the more confused I became. Only after hours of mind-numbing reading
did I come to the realization that the answer was not so easy as I had hoped. I
have to throw out another disclaimer to let you know this is just another
theory. I invite anyone who has a vested interest in the firearms market to do
their own research and make their own determination about what is the best move
for reaching your goals.
To start from the top, it’s not the President. Carter,
Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and now Trump are the Presidents I have
seen in my lifetime. After doing some research I firmly believe none of them
have impacted (despite their best efforts) the price of guns in America. I make
this statement based on the fact there is nothing going on in American society
that would allow the American President to unilaterally stop the sale,
ownership, use, trade, or possession of firearms. They can get up to the podium
and talk about taking guns (more on this later) but they can’t take guns away.
It’s not the legislature either. They can draft, rewrite,
read, review, forget, loose, and manipulate the laws that regulate guns.
However, they cannot entirely go against the power of the 2nd
Amendment. That fact alone is why residents of New York, New Jersey,
Connecticut, and California are able to own any guns at all. The legislature
can write laws to regulate firearms, but they just don’t have the clout to take
them. The laws written and signed may have an impact on the prices we pay at
the counter, but those prices ultimately ebb and flow, rise and fall, sink and
swim according to other factors (more on this later too).
The manufacturers have some part in influencing the price of
firearms, but not all firearms. Basically, the big gun producers don’t have
much control over the price of what is already out there. They develop new and
improved products and set prices on those products according to industry
standards. They’re not far different from the automotive industry. They set the
price of the new stuff and the used will follow suit for a time. But, once a
piece becomes old enough there is little influence from the producer. At that
point it either becomes a classic firearm or pawn shop fodder.
You would think it’s the dealers that influence the prices
of guns, but you’d be surprised to be wrong about that one. The dealers, gun
shop owners, pawn shop owners, and private collectors are simply a collective
of people who are reacting to what is going on around them. Nothing more, and
nothing less. Presidents, mass shootings, recessions, new laws, and time of the
year are all just details these people have to consider when making their own
business transactions. It doesn’t matter if they’re honest or not, they don’t
set the sticker prices at the end of the day.
As far as I was able to tell, the consumer is the one who
sets the price on the guns in America. Face it, someone selling something wants
as much as they can get. If a person is willing to overpay, then others will
follow suit. When people overpay in mass then the standard is set. When people
refuse to overpay, or be undercompensated for that matter, the prices will
adjust accordingly. When the climate is right the consumers flock to make
purchases in mass. The dealers, manufacturers, and legislatures leap into
action as a result. If any one of the 3 can keep the consumer blinded to the
reality then the market can be controlled, but that still means the actual
prices are controlled by the consumer.
A calm market means people will be less likely to act on
impulse. So when a President standing at his podium doesn’t do anything to
divide the people, and a legislature doesn’t try to push “common-sense” gun
laws there is a calm among consumers. This change in the consumer causes the
other bodies on the food-chain to switch up their approach, causing prices to
change. At the end of it all, we the people have the power to control our
destiny. It’s up to us to make sure we aren’t taken advantage of by anyone
else.
