For those of you looking to make a quick buck, like me, with your extra gear, read this and thank me later.
MARKET EFFECTS
Primary market prices of the banned guns and magazines rose by upwards
of 50 percent during 1993 and 1994, while the ban was being debated in
Congress. Gun distributors, dealers, and collectors speculated that the
banned weapons would become expensive collectors' items. However,
prices fell sharply after the ban was implemented. Exhibit 4 shows price
trends for a number of firearms. Prices for banned AR-15 rifles, exact
copies, and legal substitutes at least doubled in the year preceding the ban,
fell to near 1992 levels once the ban took effect, and remained at those
levels at least through mid-1996. Similarly, prices of banned SWD
semiautomatic pistols rose by about 47 percent during the year preceding
the ban but fell by about 20 percent the following year. For comparison,
exhibit 4 shows that the prices of unbanned Davis and Lorcin
semiautomatic pistols (among the crime guns police seize most frequently)
remained virtually constant over the entire period.[6]
Fueled by the preban speculative price boom, production of assault
weapons surged in the months leading up to the ban. Data limitations
preclude precise and comprehensive counts. However, estimates based on
BATF gun production data suggest that the annual production of five
categories of assault weapons--AR-15s, models by Intratec, SWD, AA
Arms, and Calico--and legal substitutes rose by more than 120 percent,
from an estimated average of 91,000 guns annually between 1989 and
1993 to about 204,000 in 1994--more than 1 year's extra supply (see
exhibit 5). In contrast, production of unbanned Lorcin and Davis pistols
fell by about 35 percent, from an average of 283,000 annually between
1989 and 1993 to 184,000 in 1994.
These trends suggest that the preban price and production increases
reflected speculation that grandfathered weapons and magazines in the
banned categories would become profitable collectors' items after the ban
took effect. Instead, assault weapons prices fell sharply within months
after the ban was in place, apparently under the combined weight of
preban overproduction of grandfathered guns and the introduction of new
legal substitute guns at that time.
These findings resemble what happened in 1989, when imports of several
models of assault rifles surged prior to the implementation of a Federal
ban.[7] Shortly thereafter, while California debated its own ban, criminal
use of assault weapons declined,[8] suggesting that higher prices and
speculative stockpiling made the guns less accessible to criminal users.[9]
It was plausible that the price and production trends related to the 1994
ban would be followed by an increase in reported thefts of assault
weapons, for at least two reasons. First, if short-term price increases in
primary markets temporarily kept assault weapons from entering illegal
sales channels, criminals might be tempted to steal them instead. In
addition, dealers and collectors who paid high speculative prices for
grandfathered assault weapons around the time of the ban, but then
watched as their investment depreciated after the ban took effect, might be
inclined to sell the guns to ineligible purchasers and then falsely report
them as stolen to insurance companies and regulatory agencies.[10]
By the spring of 1996, however, there had been no such increase. Instead,
thefts of assault weapons declined about 14 percent as a fraction of all
thefts of semiautomatics.[11] Therefore, it appears that, at least in the short
term, the grandfathered assault weapons remained largely in dealers' and
collectors' inventories instead of leaking into the secondary markets
through which criminals tend to obtain guns.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/173405.txt
MARKET EFFECTS
Primary market prices of the banned guns and magazines rose by upwards
of 50 percent during 1993 and 1994, while the ban was being debated in
Congress. Gun distributors, dealers, and collectors speculated that the
banned weapons would become expensive collectors' items. However,
prices fell sharply after the ban was implemented. Exhibit 4 shows price
trends for a number of firearms. Prices for banned AR-15 rifles, exact
copies, and legal substitutes at least doubled in the year preceding the ban,
fell to near 1992 levels once the ban took effect, and remained at those
levels at least through mid-1996. Similarly, prices of banned SWD
semiautomatic pistols rose by about 47 percent during the year preceding
the ban but fell by about 20 percent the following year. For comparison,
exhibit 4 shows that the prices of unbanned Davis and Lorcin
semiautomatic pistols (among the crime guns police seize most frequently)
remained virtually constant over the entire period.[6]
Fueled by the preban speculative price boom, production of assault
weapons surged in the months leading up to the ban. Data limitations
preclude precise and comprehensive counts. However, estimates based on
BATF gun production data suggest that the annual production of five
categories of assault weapons--AR-15s, models by Intratec, SWD, AA
Arms, and Calico--and legal substitutes rose by more than 120 percent,
from an estimated average of 91,000 guns annually between 1989 and
1993 to about 204,000 in 1994--more than 1 year's extra supply (see
exhibit 5). In contrast, production of unbanned Lorcin and Davis pistols
fell by about 35 percent, from an average of 283,000 annually between
1989 and 1993 to 184,000 in 1994.
These trends suggest that the preban price and production increases
reflected speculation that grandfathered weapons and magazines in the
banned categories would become profitable collectors' items after the ban
took effect. Instead, assault weapons prices fell sharply within months
after the ban was in place, apparently under the combined weight of
preban overproduction of grandfathered guns and the introduction of new
legal substitute guns at that time.
These findings resemble what happened in 1989, when imports of several
models of assault rifles surged prior to the implementation of a Federal
ban.[7] Shortly thereafter, while California debated its own ban, criminal
use of assault weapons declined,[8] suggesting that higher prices and
speculative stockpiling made the guns less accessible to criminal users.[9]
It was plausible that the price and production trends related to the 1994
ban would be followed by an increase in reported thefts of assault
weapons, for at least two reasons. First, if short-term price increases in
primary markets temporarily kept assault weapons from entering illegal
sales channels, criminals might be tempted to steal them instead. In
addition, dealers and collectors who paid high speculative prices for
grandfathered assault weapons around the time of the ban, but then
watched as their investment depreciated after the ban took effect, might be
inclined to sell the guns to ineligible purchasers and then falsely report
them as stolen to insurance companies and regulatory agencies.[10]
By the spring of 1996, however, there had been no such increase. Instead,
thefts of assault weapons declined about 14 percent as a fraction of all
thefts of semiautomatics.[11] Therefore, it appears that, at least in the short
term, the grandfathered assault weapons remained largely in dealers' and
collectors' inventories instead of leaking into the secondary markets
through which criminals tend to obtain guns.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/173405.txt
