With all due respect to the boys and girls in blue, I've got two words for 'em: Boo. Hoo. When the .gov starts talking about severely restricting the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms, that causes a reaction and not just from the entrenched few. There are a lot more new gun owners, in addition to the folks who already own firearms and decided to lay in a few hundred (or thousand, or...) extra rounds while they still could. (Anecdote is not data but you can find two new gun owners and one new shotgun owner in this blog post from sunny California and it's not quite the bitter clinger demographic the pundits tell me is buyin' all the guns.) Police armories are well-stocked and no one (outside of the New York legislature, where El Supremo Cuomo assures us police will still be carrying deadly high-capacity assault magazines designed only to kill, kill, kill despite the law limiting them to seven rounds max just like the hapless citizenry of that misgoverned state) is talking about limiting the access of police to arms and ammunition.
Nope. But it's first come, first serve at the ammo sales counter and the price is directly related to the ratio of demand to supply. If the police don't like it, they can
"Preparing for war?" the Left is musing. No, dears, we are already at war; it's just the nicer, non-shooting kind. Most folks prefer working these things out at the soap box/letterbox/inbox/ballot box level -- even those of us with plenty of cartridge boxes.
The news story calls this shortage an "unintended consequence." Nope, at least I intended it; my last name is not .gov or .mil and if things get clamped down, all I'll have is what's already in my possession. Also, isn't it cute that The Media dimly remember that "Unintended Consequences" has something to do with firearms and governmental overreach? (But the Feds sound more from Bracken these days.)
* Dr. Freud? Dr. Freud?