Gary Marbut: Ammo Shortage a Supply and Demand Issue

Folks,

Several of you have asked me what the cause of the ammunition shortage is.

The ammo shortage is nation-wide, and pretty much for all calibers. The shortage also includes ammunition components (brass, powder, primers and bullets) and all reloading equipment and supplies.

A part of the problem is the heavy federal government purchases, stressing an already-stressed marketplace.

However, the larger problem is the difference in elasticity between supply and demand.

The supply side is relatively inelastic. Manufacturers cannot increase production more than 30-40% before they begin exhausting their component suppliers. The component suppliers can’t expand more than 30-40% before they max out their material suppliers, all the way to the ends of the many supply chains. This is a usual rule for any type of manufacturing, and applies now in spades to ammunition. Manufacturers are running hard trying to satisfy demand. Hey, they’re in business and want to sell.

However, the demand side is VERY elastic, and driven by the psychological response of Americans to economic and political uncertainties. One supplier says he doesn’t have a shortage of ammunition, but a serious surplus of customers. As long as people have discretionary funds available and are stressed by political and economic uncertainty, or even by perceived political and economic uncertainty, demand for ammo will outstrip supply.

The only thing that would turn this around in the near future is if conditions change to remove or moderate the perception of economic and political uncertainty in the U.S. Frankly, my crystal ball doesn’t see that happening any time soon, unfortunately. If authorities would imprison a slug of high mucky-mucks in D.C., things might cool down, but I’m not holding my breath waiting for that.

Gary Marbut, President
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
Author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.MTPublish.com

New World Order of Microstamping and Silver Bullets

Bearing in mind that Kalifornia is the practice model for a new world order under a one world government, the state has finally authorized the implementation of mandatory “microstamping” of handguns. Microstamping is a method of using technology to create a unique “stamp” that is made when a firing pin meets the firing cap end of a cartridge. It’s also something very easy to get around. In other words, it’s a useless piece of legislation unless, of course, the aim here is to ban guns.

Under the guise of being able to “track” guns used in crimes, the action is actually about ending the manufacture and sale of handguns in California. But that’s okay! Just keep telling yourself that government is good for you and they are here to help and protect you.

In addition to the microstamping issue, the totalitarian regime in California is one vote away from implementing a state-wide ban on lead ammunition.

Police Ask Citizens to Help Supply Ammo

It first began when we started hearing that police departments around the country were having shortages of ammunition. Now we are reading stories, like this one at CNS News, stating that one police department in Proctor, Minnesota, pleaded with citizens to “loan” them their ammunition.

So, seriously. Where’s all the ammunition?

According to Jim Shepherd at Outdoor Wire, it’s the gun and ammunition manufacturing industry with the problem, even going so far as to claim there is no conspiracy or plot to disarm people.

What I’ve heard loud and clear in my conversations with retailers and range owners is that they’re certainly talking to each other – and listening to disgruntled customers. And their talk isn’t pleasant when the subject is manufacturers or industry groups. Historically, it seems there’s always been a divide between manufacturers and retailers, but this divide looks wide enough to have some of them looking at joining forces and taking their message to consumers.

If that happens, I’ve been told, they’re going to look -skeptically- at every industry group to see who’s stepping up to explain the facts of product shortages to consumers. And they want companies to go to their distributors and tell them there are smaller businesses- who makeup a large portion of the industry- suffering because they insist on supplying big box retailers first, and that’s not acceptable.

They want manufacturers to actually tell their distributors a portion of their product inventories must be allocated to smaller retailers. And they don’t want to hear excuses why that’s not practical. “It’s not right,” said one Oklahoma dealer, “for me to have empty shelves and loyal customers when big box stores have product and don’t care about customers or fellow retailers.”

Hmmmmm! Is this true? If it is then there must be some kind of conspiracy here. From my own personal experience, prior to late in 2007, I could go just about anywhere in the United States – big city or small town, big box retailer or small gun shop owner – and buy just about any amount of ammunition that I wanted. So what’s changed?

If Shepherd’s information is accurate, then Obama’s anti gun identification tag had nothing to do with this shortage, or Big Sis’s hoarding of certain caliber ammo. Instead, a conspiracy (it must. What else would you call it?) exists with the manufacturers of ammunition to run the little gun shops out of business and refuse to supply police departments, or something along those lines.

Is this to drive the price of ammunition through the roof in order to gouge the consumer for big profits? Are manufacturers taking advantage of the anti gun rhetoric coming out of Washington and through some anti rights groups, and deliberately creating shortages.

I’ll go back to my original comment and question. In late 2007 (you figure out the significance of the date.) I could buy ammo anywhere, anytime. What’s changed since then? There has to be either a real shortage of ammunition, brought on mostly by hoarding and panic buying or there’s a shortage brought on by the ammunition manufacturing industry because of whatever their financial and/or political goals are.

If the problem lies with the ammo industry, then police departments should be able to buy their ammunition through big box retailers…..shouldn’t they? Have they tried? Or is there a shortage AND the industry is only supplying big retailers? Is there a conspiracy to disarm the police departments? Is this disarming of police departments in instill more fear and panic in Americans?

What’s changed? Are there so many new gun owners since 2007 that it would cause an ammo shortage and a gun shortage? Have more people bought more ammunition than at any other time in history? Have manufacturing plants stopped producing as much ammo as they used to? If ammo is only being sold to big box outfits, then I should be able to get all the ammo I want through them. Is that possible?

Here’s one thing that seems to be a certainty. I happen to know of at least two states that have seen a windfall of over $1 million each in Pittman-Robertson excise tax money from the Federal Government. This excise tax is collected on the sale of certain outdoor sporting goods. A $1 million windfall tax for one small state, like Maine, tells us somebody has been buying up an awful lot of sporting goods. Has that increase been in everything except guns and ammunition? Has the increase been universally distributed throughout all the outdoor sporting equipment sales? Or has the increase come as a result of the increased sales of guns and ammunition. What I’ve been hearing is that it has all come from the sale of guns and ammunition and all since 2007.

So, what’s changed and where does the problem exist? You tell me.

S.649: One of Those “Reasonable” Gun Control Laws

I tire immensely from the brain dead regurgitation I constantly hear from people who don’t understand the difference between a right, a privilege, a God-given right, while at the same time calling for “something to be done” and labeling it “reasonable.” And yes, I’m speaking about gun control, or more accurately defined as anti rights people control.

S.649, “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013″, is an example of anti rights people control, that has little to do with “reasonable” background checks prior to purchasing a firearm and nothing to do with making communities and/or schools safer.

The entire bill is long, confusing, as is intended to be full of legal mumbo-jumbo. I have yet to get through reading the entire bill, say little about deciphering it.

Yesterday, I received and email about this bill and that email pointed out some things people should know about this bill as it pertains to Sec. 122 – Firearms Transfers. Below is a cut and paste of that section only (a link to the entire bill is above), with some highlighting, followed by some comments and my interpretations as to just what it might mean.

(Begin)

SEC. 122. FIREARMS TRANSFERS.

(a) In General- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–

(1) by repealing subsection (s);

(2) by redesignating subsection (t) as subsection (s);

(3) in subsection (s), as redesignated–

(A) in paragraph (3)(C)(ii), by striking `(as defined in subsection (s)(8))’; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

`(7) In this subsection, the term `chief law enforcement officer’ means the chief of police, the sheriff, or an equivalent officer or the designee of any such individual.’; and

(4) by inserting after subsection (s), as redesignated, the following:

`(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). Upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee’s inventory to the unlicensed transferee.

`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to–

`(A) bona fide gifts between spouses, between parents and their children, between siblings, or between grandparents and their grandchildren;

`(B) a transfer made from a decedent’s estate, pursuant to a legal will or the operation of law;

`(C) a temporary transfer of possession that occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee, if–

`(i) the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage of the unlicensed transferor;

`(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or curtilage during the temporary transfer; and

`(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days; and

`(D) a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title made in connection with lawful hunting or sporting purposes if the transfer occurs–

`(i) at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting range;

`(ii) at a target firearm shooting competition under the auspices of or approved by a State agency or nonprofit organization and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting competition; or

`(iii) while hunting or trapping, if–

`(I) the activity is legal in all places where the unlicensed transferee possesses the firearm;

`(II) the temporary transfer of possession occurs during the designated hunting season; and

`(III) the unlicensed transferee holds any required license or permit.

`(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `transfer’–

`(A) shall include a sale, gift, loan, return from pawn or consignment, or other disposition; and

`(B) shall not include temporary possession of the firearm for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective transferee while in the presence of the prospective transferee.

`(4)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this subsection with regulations.

`(B) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph–

`(i) shall include a provision setting a maximum fee that may be charged by licensees for services provided in accordance with paragraph (1); and

`(ii) shall include a provision requiring a record of transaction of any transfer that occurred between an unlicensed transferor and unlicensed transferee accordance with paragraph (1).’.

(b) Technical and Conforming Amendments-

(1) SECTION 922- Section 922(y)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is amended, in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking `, (g)(5)(B), and (s)(3)(B)(v)(II)’ and inserting `and (g)(5)(B)’.

(2) SECTION 925A- Section 925A of title 18, United States Code, is amended, in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking `subsection (s) or (t) of section 922′ and inserting `section 922(s)’.

(3) NICS IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENTS ACT- Section 103(f) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 is amended by striking `section 922(t)’ and inserting `section 922(s)’.

(4) CONSOLIDATED AND FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012- Section 511 of title V of division B of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended by striking `subsection 922(t)’ and inserting `section 922(s)’ each place it appears.

(End)

In the first section that I emboldened for you, I interpret this to mean that before you can “transfer” a gun, it must go to a licensed dealer. So what does it mean to “transfer?”

Here’s what I think and perhaps you can think of others:

1. To sell
2. To make a gift
3. To loan
4. Any act where a gun is moved from your possession at home to another location and/or will ultimately result in such.

The bill does list exemptions and this is where you have to pay very close attention.

There is an exemption about gifting a gun providing it is done within the family:

“(A) bona fide gifts between spouses, between parents and their children, between siblings, or between grandparents and their grandchildren”

A gun can transfer ownership provided you do it in a legal will or “the operation of law”(Just what does that mean?)

You can loan your buddy or neighbor, etc. one of your guns IF it is done according to the rules of S.649

“(i) the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage [adjacent property] of the unlicensed transferor;

`(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or curtilage during the temporary transfer; and

`(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days.”

This is so “reasonable” that I can loan you my gun for up to 7 days but you can’t leave my house and “curtilage.”

But this isn’t all. At the end of (iii), the lawyers added an “and”. Here’s what the “and” says:

“(D) a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title made in connection with lawful hunting or sporting purposes if the transfer occurs–

`(i) at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting range;

`(ii) at a target firearm shooting competition under the auspices of or approved by a State agency or nonprofit organization and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting competition; or

`(iii) while hunting or trapping, if–

`(I) the activity is legal in all places where the unlicensed transferee possesses the firearm;

`(II) the temporary transfer of possession occurs during the designated hunting season; and

`(III) the unlicensed transferee holds any required license or permit.”

I can loan you a gun at a shooting range……well, only a shooting range as defined in this bill, which is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, clap trap, bullpucky!

What’s that you say? You’d like to borrow my .308 Savage, bolt action for the upcoming deer hunting season? Sure! No problem…..well, maybe there is. I can loan (transfer) you my gun but I can’t let you have it until deer season opens next week. I guess I could bring it to the firing range so you can practice but the nearest government approved shooting range is 150 miles away. Providing you have a hunting license, you can show up at my house at legal shooting time, the first day of deer season and I’ll loan you my gun. But there is one thing I have to tell you. I can loan you the gun but you can’t leave my house or adjacent property. You’re welcome to stay the allotted 7 days and hang out. We’ll talk about the gun and what it used to be like when a man was free in this country to do such wonderful activities as hunting.

And just so you know, the Attorney General, yeah, the same one that likes to wiretap and spy on anyone that doesn’t agree with him, has the authority to set a maximum amount a licensed gun dealer can charge for carrying out your desire to transfer a gun. Oh and shucks! I almost forgot. Did I mention that with each transfer, where required to use a licensed gun dealer to make the transfer, a background check will be performed – a reasonable one of course.

So there’s your “reasonable” anti human being bill that you can stick where the sun doesn’t shine.

Go to hell!

“Square” Bans Sale of Guns Through Its Technology Devices

The startup changed the agreement signed by retailers, which includes a ban on sales from some business activities, like drug paraphernalia and escort services. (Shady, if not downright illegal, yes, but also two business models that could especially benefit from the customer-service revolution possible from better mobile payment options.) The relevant section was since amended to forbid sales from ”firearms, firearm parts or hardware, and ammunition; or… weapons and other devices designed to cause physical injury.”<<<Read More from Forbes>>>

Comcast Bans Gun Ads, Televises Gun Violence

Shareholder Activist Group to Bring Gun Rights Battle to Comcast’s Front Door

Comcast One of Many Major American Corporations Taking Sides in the Gun Debate

Philadelphia, PA / Washington, DC – This morning, at the annual meeting of Comcast shareholders in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a representative of the National Center for Public Policy Research plans to question Comcast CEO Brian Roberts about his company’s hypocritical decision to ban gun and ammunition advertising on its airwaves.

“Comcast executives have a lot of explaining to do,” said the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. “Comcast is America’s largest cable provider, having nearly monopoly control in many areas of the country. By attacking the Second Amendment, it is directing aim at one of America’s founding principles.”

“Shows on Comcast’s cable and broadcast programming consistently glorify gratuitous displays of gun violence. Comcast profits from violent programming, yet is actively working to thwart gun shops – many of which are small businesses – from legally selling firearms and ammunitions to people who overwhelmingly use firearms in a lawful and safe manner, including in self-defense,” noted Danhof. “This is hypocrisy in the highest.”

Comcast operates in 39 states and the District of Columbia.

In March, USA Today and many other media outlets reported that Comcast would no longer run commercials for guns or ammunition. Chris Ellis, a spokesman for Comcast Spotlight (Comcast’s advertising division) explained: “Comcast Spotlight has decided it will not accept new advertising for firearms or weapons moving forward.”

“The National Rifle Association has five million members, and nearly two-thirds of Americans believe in the Second Amendment as a necessary protection against tyranny,” said Danhof. “Comcast is engaged in an odd and possibly costly business practice that is alienating many potential customers. What is more, the company is actively rejecting advertising revenue that could increase the cable giant’s bottom line. This is a dereliction of their fiduciary duty to the company. Shareholders and potential investors may want to steer clear of Comcast’s stock until the company’s leadership team reasserts their commitment to shareholder value instead of this rigid anti-gun, anti-Constitution perspective.”

“In a 2008 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual American’s right to possess a firearm, yet some on the liberal left continue to refuse to accept that reality,” added Danhof. “It is a shame that some in corporate America are joining their fringe effort to limit the Constitutional rights of Americans.”

Comcast’s actions are hypocritical, the National Center believes. Comcast is telling would-be gun advertisers that they cannot profit through their television medium, yet that is what Comcast does all day, every day.

Earlier this year, the non-partisan Parents Television Council reviewed the 392 primetime, broadcast television programs that aired between January 11th and February 11th and found that 193 shows had at least one act of violence and 121 shows included at least one act of gun violence.

Comcast’s anti-gun decision comes at a time when gun violence in America is actually declining. Last week, the Los Angeles Times reported that gun crime has plunged in the United States since its high-water mark in the mid-1990s, but a majority of Americans think gun crime is on the rise.

“What could be the reason for this disconnect? Look no further than Comcast’s cable news division MSNBC,” said Danhof. “From Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski in the morning, to Rachel Maddow in the evening, MSNBC’s partisan rants against gun rights and the NRA seemingly never end. By exploiting tragedies such as the Sandy Hook shooting, MSNBC’s advocacy has helped distort reality and distract many Americans from the truth that gun violence is on the decline.”

Comcast isn’t the only major American corporation that is attacking the Second Amendment.

• In January, Time Warner Cable announced that it would no longer permit ads that depict semi-automatic weapons or have guns pointed at people.

• Also in January, Groupon cancelled all gun-related deals in North America.

• Last month, GE Capital, General Electric’s lending division, cut lending to retailers who primarily sell guns.

• In 2012, Google informed merchants that it would no longer allow listings for gun- and weapon-related items on its Google Shopping platform.

Since January 1, 2013, the National Center has participated in 23 shareholder meetings. Today’s Comcast meeting moves that total to 24. In 2012, the National Center participated in 19 meetings.

A copy of Danhof’s question at today’s shareholder meeting, as prepared for delivery, can be found here.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a Comcast shareholder.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than 4 percent from foundations, and less than 2 percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

NSSF Dumps Reed Exhibitions, Will They Dump Connecticut?

Most of you are probably already aware that earlier this year, the Eastern Outdoor Expo in Pennsylvania was canceled when Reed Exhibitions, who host the event, banned guns in the show. Mass numbers of exhibitors pulled out of the show eventually forcing Reed Exhibitions to cancel.

When you combine the questionable tactics of Reed Exhibitions with the anti gun efforts by this administration and groups bent on ridding the world of guns, things happen that leave one to question the sanity of some businesses such as Reed Exhibitions. The backlash and fallout from Reed’s gun banning is still showing up.

Recently the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) announced it was dumping Reed Exhibitions, who have been doing their SHOT Show for over 30 years.

Some NSSF members say this announcement took too long in coming but in addition to that, are questioning why NSSF doesn’t pull it’s operation out of Connecticut, which recently implemented several anti gun and anti gun business regulations.

Rate of Gun Homicide Has Dropped 49%

Did you know that? Apparently the majority of people believe it’s gone up. Why would that be the case?

Pew Research information on gun violence.

Obama Drying Up Ammo Sources?

Since the first rumblings heard around the country that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)(Big Sis) was stockpiling huge amounts of ammunition, theories have abounded. Big Sis’s explanation was they were saving the U.S. taxpayers money by purchasing in bulk. After I got up off the floor and went and washed up and put on clean, dry clothes, I rationally concluded that it is highly unlikely that Big Sis, or any other government agency was looking into saving taxpayers money. I mean, come on!

The frontrunner in conspiracy theories was that Homeland Security was preparing for civil unrest, especially when we learned Big Sis was also buying up used, light-armored tanks. Of the remaining theories, the only other one that seems to hold some water, given what information is easily available, was that President Obama was looking to dry up ammunition sources available to private citizens; kind of a back door attempt at repealing the Second Amendment.

Perhaps now the most serious effort to promote that theory comes from Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma. He states:

“Let’s make sure that your audience out there is aware, Aaron, that our president, Obama, has been doing everything he could to stop the private ownership of guns in America,” Inhofe said. “You know that, everyone knows that. And yet he’s been voted down in a big way by a large majority. And so my feeling is that he’s doing this to buy up [ammunition] so that we can’t buy: Honest, law-abiding citizens here in the United States, like my son, can’t even buy ammunition because government is purchasing so much.”

Senator Inhofe evidently believes this strongly enough that he is planning to introduce a bill that he says will limit, “non-defense, armed federal agencies to pre-Obama levels of ammunition” and have the General Accounting Office audit non-military organizations like DHS, to account for what they are using the ammo for.

Regardless of whether President Obama is deliberately drying up supplies of ammunition or private gun owners are buying it all up due to planning ahead and fear, or a combination of both, it is extremely difficult to purchase any ammunition anywhere. Pity those who did not plan ahead.

If Obama is attempting to circumvent the Second Amendment by owning all the ammunition, I think the president has lost sight of, or he never had it to begin with, the fact that this is America. These are Americans and they WILL find other ways of getting their hands on ammunition. Perhaps not to the same amount of ammunition available now or the same price but it will be there.

In addition, if this theory were to hold true, then the citizens would need to question whether the President’s motives are to circumvent the Constitution or keep ammo out of the hands of criminals. Criminals will always have “black market” items. History has proven that. Therefore, a move such as this would be directed only at ensuring an unarmed populace.

But if you agree with Obama, then you will repeat his words and say I am only “gumming up” the works.

Montana Gov. Bullock Vetos Bill to Allow Guns on College Campuses

Some of the bills vetoed by Bullock Monday included:

HB240, by Rep. Cary Smith, R-Billings, which would have allowed students to have guns on college campuses.<<<Read More from the Billings Gazette>>>

Next Page »