Over at Knowledge Problem, Michael Giberson reports on accusations of price gouging for rifles that may be subject to firearms restrictions in coming days. According to Giberson, "price gouging claims require three factors: a price judged unfairly high, an emergency or difficult situation, and a product or service useful in responding to the emergency." This sounds an awful lot like coerced by circumstance.
So gun sales prior to a pending ban are not euvoluntary. Do you suppose the cops will show up at gun shows, confiscate the merchandise and destroy it in front of cheering onlookers?
How would moral attitudes change if the source of the scarcity was a pending invasion? We're still looking at a sharp, unexpected rise in demand. You might even argue that the need for prices to reflect relative scarcity is even more important when existential threats loom. I somehow doubt folks would be so sanguine.