I haven't heard of any data collected on the economic impact of MPPA. I know that I myself have spent a couple of thousand dollars since 04 with classes, a used gun, upgrade to a new gun, ammo, reloading equipment, magazines, targets etc. I was wondering if there has been any mention of the statewide economic impact that is occuring. I don't have access to the metro area news, (by choice) has there been any discussion about this?

I doubt anyone has looked into it.

Another part of the economic impact is the permit holders boycotting or supporting businesses that ban/don't ban guns.

If there is any positive news about any aspect of the MN carry law you can bet it will not be reported in the local media.

It's an interesting question. I think that the answer is much like that of the stadium economic impact question.

Did gunflint put more money into the economy? Probably not. More likely, he simply re-allocated his discretionary income from beer, loose women, fast horses, stamp collecting, or wherever he spent it before.

I'm no economist, but logic suggests that public policy has an economic impact when it brings in revenue from outside the system or creates new jobs.

The money spent on Minnesota carry issues is mostly spent by Minnesotans, so there is little net gain.

A few thousand people a year take carry classes. Even if you figure that 50,000 people will have permits by year 5, that's only 10,000 classes per year. Figure not more than $125 per class, average, and you have an annual pre-tax revenue to instructors of $1,250,000. That's the equivalent of 25 $50,000 incomes, statewide.

Nationally, I'm sure the wave of shall-issue legislation has been good for handgun, ammunition and holster makers, but I think the local impact has been minimal.

That pretty much describes me, too. I lost 8 pounds in 2 weeks when I bought my first .45 'cause the ammo was coming out of my beer money. I call it the Second Amendment Diet.

Multiple guns, safes, accessories and holsters so I would say @2k also.

Tell me about it........wandered in to Gander today...........now own a S&W .40 cal. All I was doing was checking our class poster when I heard a faint call from the gun area..."save me...take me home"........... how could I resist.

Although I haven't had a beer in over 13 years, and I've been with the same women for 28, I don't know a thing about horses or stamps, the walleye fishing industry did report a noticable dip in revenue in 04-05.

I think that moving money around from one area to another is somewhat possitive for the overall economy. I don't believe very many people in the firearms or related industies will get rich. It might generate enough revenue to start a few new businesses and feed established ones. I also think that Pakrat's point about the buying power of permit holders is valid, all be it probably impossible to gauge.

There is an economic downside however. It's possible that some bad guys might get out of the business for health reasons.