Local gun sales spike after Obama election
Shop manager: People say U.N. coming to take weapons
CANYON COUNTY — According to some local gun shop owners, Canyon County residents will have plenty of guns and ammunition for whatever they think is on the political and economic horizon after President Barack Obama’s re-election. Many have seen a spike in gun and ammunition sales since the Nov. 6 vote. Some tie the spike directly to the fear that Obama will enact stricter guns laws if not confiscate guns outright. Customers are “lining up deep” to buy guns at his Caldwell store, Al’s Pawn & Sports manager RJ Fox said Wednesday.
“Everybody’s in a panic” that the Obama administration will impose gun restrictions, Fox said. “I’m hearing from people that the U.N. is going to come and take their guns, which is preposterous.
“Everyone’s making sure they can get what they can get.”
Obama hasn’t issued any executive orders or pushed for any bills on gun control. But he said during a presidential debate on Oct. 16 that he’s trying to “get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally.”
“Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced,” Obama said. That may have been enough to cause a run on those kinds of guns.
Alpha Omega Services owner Roberta Regnier said sales at her Nampa business are up 100 percent this month over last. She doesn’t link that to Obama, because she said Romney is just as anti-gun. But she said her customers are preparing for economic upheaval.
“They can tell things are looking bad,” Regnier said. “They may need it (guns and ammunition) to protect themselves. They may think that the government is probably going to take away their rights so they’re going to be needing it for self protection.”
Regnier said she agrees with her customers, and she said if the food stamp program so many rely on ceases to exist, people will need guns to protect themselves from hungry thieves.
John Cox said he has experienced a little spike in his gun sales and a lot of talk. He owns Boulevard Gun and Pawn in Nampa.
“Everybody’s afraid that Obama’s going to ban guns and tax ammo,” Cox said. “The same rumors that we heard four years ago.”
RK Gunsmithing owner Robert Krone said his increase in business is “not as crazy” as it was four years ago when Obama was first elected. He said only about five to 10 percent of the customers in his Nampa business are concerned the government is going after guns.
“He (Obama) has bigger fish to fry than going after Second Amendment rights,” Krone said. But Fox called the new Obama administration the “best salesman” for guns since 2008.
Not all gun sellers welcome the trend. Buyers can clean out inventories that are hard to replace because of the high demand, leaving some dealers without the more sought-after firearms.
“If you put on a little bit of panic about what the administration might do, it’s claiming a lot of guns out of the pipeline,” Cox said.
If people buy enough ammunition to last for years, Larry’s Sporting Goods in Nampa owner Larry Livesay said, they won’t return to stores to potentially make related purchases.
“I know some businesses that try to promote that panic,” Livesay said, “but I’m not one of them. I don’t jump on that bandwagon.”
As for Black Friday, people could be buying more than flat panel televisions and computer tablets.
“I think it’s going to be a major gun buying and ammo buying day, too,” Fox said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Listen, if you believe this rot, I've got a bridge I wanna sell you across the Bay Of Phoenix. Come on folks. When are you gonna wise up and turn off Faux News? This is the biggest hoax station in the universe. Anyone who believes anything they say needs a personal counselor to follow them around daily.
Folks at Faux News just make up stories as the go along...
Call it the conspiracy theory that won’t die. The U.N. has been working for years to produce a final text of the Arms Trade Treaty, an agreement to regulate the global arms trade (right now, international banana and bottled water sales are more restricted than weapons sales). The negotiations have just restarted and, with them, a massive round of panic on the right about the U.N.’s nefarious plan to undermine the Second Amendment. The NRA frets that “global gun banners have markedly stepped up their attack on our Second Amendment freedoms.” Roughly 130 Congresspeople speculated that “the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to…our constitutional rights.” The Washington Times led an editorial with the screaming headline “The U.N. is coming for your guns.” There’s just one problem with this narrative: it’s totally made up:
The Obama Administration required language in the initial 2009 General Assembly resolution acknowledging “national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory.”
- The State Department rules out provisions restricting constitutional rights and sovereign control of domestic weapons regulation in its ATT “Red Lines.”
- Since the Supreme Court has held that individual gun ownership is constitutionally protected, and international law cannot override the Constitution, the U.N. could not take American guns even if the Administration and Senate wanted it to.
- As Naval Postgraduate School arms expert Diana Wueger points out, the ATT isn’t even intended to regulate domestic arms: “The Arms Trade Treaty will not regulate domestic sales of firearms. Its focus is instead on the control of the legal, international trade in conventional weapons.”
- Conspirators seize on a recently leaked U.N. paper’s suggestion that “arms trade must therefore be regulated in ways that would…minimize the risk of misuse of legally owned weapons.” Even setting aside the ambiguity of the line in question, the paper (inaccurately portrayed as part of a press kit) is playing no role in the negotiations over the text of the ATT. ThinkProgress confirmed this with U.N. Office for Disarmament Affairs Information Officer Ewan Buchanan, who said “The negotiation is being done by the member states of the U.N., not by the Secretariat. It was an information paper that does not form any part of the negotiation process and the member states of the U.N. don’t have it.”