Panic buying, which followed President Obama’s election and the Democratic Party’s majority in both the House and Senate, created a seller’s market for gun dealers and sporting goods stores in 2009.
The lingering effects of that run, based on an unwarranted fear of losing the right to bear arms, has created a buyer’s market in 2010.
“Totally flip-flopped,” said Van Allen, of Van’s Deer Processing and Sporting Goods in Brandon. “Consumers are now in the best position. There are deals on firearms and hunting accessories the likes of which we’ve never seen or dreamed could happen.
“Manufacturers based their 2010 production on 2009 sales, but they learned that the demand - the buying that followed the 2008 election - didn’t materialize again.”
Excess product - except rifle and pistol cartridges, which remain in short supply nationally - means better deals, like rebates, lower prices and store specials.
“Shotgun shells are no problem, but the cartridges in all calibers are tough to find,” Allen said. “I’m ordering everything I can knowing that I’ll be lucky if I get half of what I order.”
MBJ
Showing posts with label Second Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Second Amendment. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Supreme Courts Gun ruling will have repercussions beyond Second Amendment
Are you a "state's rights" believer? A Second Amendment advocate? Ever think you would have to choose between the two?
The Supreme Courts hearing today of McDonald v. Chicago could effectively gut many gun control laws, while empowering the Federal Government. Any future federal rulings that favor gay marriage or other groups could then bind the states.
In other words, are states bound by the Bill of Rights, or do they simply bind the Federal Government. If it is the former, then future rulings can virtually wipe out state rights and end the argument once and for all in favor of a powerful Federal Goverment. If it is the latter, then Second Amendment advocates must allow that some states and local governments have the authority to implement gun control laws.
George Washington University Professor Jonathan Turley prognosticates the possibilities in a Roll Call opinion piece today.
Turley says, "Since most rules affecting gun ownership are municipal and state laws, the decision could make it difficult to ban outright possession of handguns and other types of weapons. However, there is an even more significant constitutional question in the case that could have ramifications far beyond gun rights — an issue that has divided both the liberal and conservative alliances in the case."
The Washington Post argues, "It would seem incongruous at best and legally indefensible at worst to deny to those beyond the nation's capital a right that the justices have ruled is embedded in the federal Constitution.
"That is not to say, however, that a recognition of individual rights should foreclose the possibility of regulation. Writing for the five-justice majority in Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia acknowledged that "like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Indeed, even First Amendment rights of free speech and association have been subject to restrictions when the government proves it has a compelling reason. The court should rearticulate this important principle."
The Supreme Courts hearing today of McDonald v. Chicago could effectively gut many gun control laws, while empowering the Federal Government. Any future federal rulings that favor gay marriage or other groups could then bind the states.
In other words, are states bound by the Bill of Rights, or do they simply bind the Federal Government. If it is the former, then future rulings can virtually wipe out state rights and end the argument once and for all in favor of a powerful Federal Goverment. If it is the latter, then Second Amendment advocates must allow that some states and local governments have the authority to implement gun control laws.
George Washington University Professor Jonathan Turley prognosticates the possibilities in a Roll Call opinion piece today.
Turley says, "Since most rules affecting gun ownership are municipal and state laws, the decision could make it difficult to ban outright possession of handguns and other types of weapons. However, there is an even more significant constitutional question in the case that could have ramifications far beyond gun rights — an issue that has divided both the liberal and conservative alliances in the case."
The Washington Post argues, "It would seem incongruous at best and legally indefensible at worst to deny to those beyond the nation's capital a right that the justices have ruled is embedded in the federal Constitution.
"That is not to say, however, that a recognition of individual rights should foreclose the possibility of regulation. Writing for the five-justice majority in Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia acknowledged that "like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Indeed, even First Amendment rights of free speech and association have been subject to restrictions when the government proves it has a compelling reason. The court should rearticulate this important principle."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)