AHC: Ban guns for self-defense in the US from the 1930s (no private arms)

Possible?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 10.0%
  • No

    Votes: 27 90.0%

  • Total voters
    30
With a POD no earlier than January 1, 1930, ban guns in the US. Totally. Only the interpretation of a "well-armed and well-regualed militia" is allowed.

Bonus points if you associate this with social conservatism.
 

Vuru

Banned
It is possible but will only make lives more difficult since all the guns are illegal

People really like guns in general, they won't just magically throw them away unless you somehow completely pacify the population and have a police state
 
Not happening unless you completely disregard the rural areas in the united states. Hunting alone would push this into asb territory.
 

Driftless

Donor
There were and are several hundred thousand hunters in the US and it's a cultural, social, and economic engine in many areas. You can make logical arguments for reducing who has access to what, but total prohibition wouldn't fly far. I used to hunt, but haven't for many years, but many of my neighbors, family and friends do. The opening day of Deer gun season is like a religious holiday in observance.
 
i'd say it would be possible in the context of the war.
but only for multi-shot weapons it would fly. so allowing pure hunting weapons in rural areas. but not other weapons like pistols etc,no guns in urban areas.
 
I suppose if it was going to happen then this would be as good as a time as any. If they can ban alcohol then anything is possible :rolleyes: a good way to get things going would be a far stricter interpretation of 'a well regulated militia'
Alternatively you could have America admit they made a bit of a mistake and beg to rejoin the British empire thus removing the need to defend the farm from the evil machinations of King George III and his off spring, just a thought :openedeyewink:
 
When the Founding Fathers have advocated the people having guns from the get-go (the militia was the people back then), it's a bit unworkable.

When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
 
Would the people of the U.S.A be generally more law abiding if only the police had guns? Is it possible that more Americans would be as concerned with legal niceties as the average European? Would there have not been, for example, been bootlegging such as that of the Camden market, beginning in Los Angeles in 1969?
 
Last edited:
Banning all guns? Not going to happen. Tighter gun control and perhaps universal registration like what we have with cars? Mandatory licensing and safety courses? That I could see. All it would take is to treat guns like cars - big machinery with a specific purpose that we as American citizens are allowed to have but that require a lot of care and safety measures.
 
For me the PoD is 23-27 years too late, I think the chance was during the 1903 Dick Act or its 1908 addendum which replaced the 1792 Militia Act; this was the legislation 2nd Amendment was made to enable. If either of these Acts states that the National Guard Organised Militia is to be equipped by the State and Federal Government, rather than the detailed list of equipment that the 1792 Act lays out for a Militia, then this would knock the leg out from under the 2nd Amendment allowing it to be challenged and possibly overturned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
 
Going beyond the National Firearms Act of 1934 I could see registration and Licensing as well as and maybe banning handguns under a certain barrel length as that they were very common in most crimes and maybe outlawing certain calibers
 
The challenge is enforcing two different standards for rural and urban dwellers. Trying to enforce any rule on criminal gangs is difficult to impossible.

The concept of "a well-regulated militia" in modern terms means army reservists or National Guard in a chain of command directly linked to the Pentagon. Most of the other self-proclaimed, American "militias" are bumbling amateurs that I would not trust with a water pistol!
Hah!
Hah!

On the one hand, farmers routinely carry guns to kill wolves or bears threatening their livestock. Farmers should also be allowed to keep guns in their trucks during visits to town.

One extreme is Alaska where the Federal Aviation Administration insists that bush pilots carry guns (in their planes) to scare off curious bears.

OTOH urban dwellers have little need or use for guns. It should be easy for a leftist city council to ban guns in town except for police. Current Canadian gun laws currently ban discharging any firearm within city limits and severely limit where recreational shooters can practice.

Now we move to the Canadian example where shooters need to pass a basic firearms safety course before earning a (federal) Possession and Acquistion License. A PAL card must be presented when buying guns or ammo.
Furthermore, PAL holders must join a local gun club. City dwellers are required to lock up their guns at home with guns and ammo in separate lockers. Keeping guns and ammo in separate lockers reduces the number of crimes of passion ( shooting your wife's other lover). City dwellers are only allowed to transport guns (by the most direct route) to a local gun club, which is the only place they are allowed to shoot.
Canadian Hunters get a bit more leeway as to where they can shoot, but still need a hunting license. They are only allowed to hunt with the land-owners' permission and only during hunting season.

With fewer guns in circulation, fewer Canadians die of gunshot wounds.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police tried to ban "pocket pistols" chambered for .25 or .32 caliber bullets. Their logic included the notion that small pistols firing bullets equivalent to .22 Long rifle would annoy victims, but were too weak to kill most ... increasing medical costs, etc. Eventually some one reminded the RCMP that .25 ACP is used in the Olympics. Now .25 caliber is only allowed for shooters training for international competitions.
Hah!
Hah!
Machine guns, rocket launchers of any weapon more than .50 caliber is banned in Canada, because they are useless for hunters.

OTOH criminals can buy any guns they want. A small-time drug dealer (from a medium-sized town up the coast) bragged that he could get his hands on any (prohibited) machine gun or rocket launcher. Most of those prohibited weapons are smuggled in from the USA. Mexico suffers from similar problems with drug gangs smuggling weapons in from the USA. This results in 90 percent of shootings in Vancouver being one drug gang shooting another drug gang.
Regular urban citizens do not worry about armed robberies or murders because gun crimes (outside of the drug trade) are rare.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

Banned
Not happening unless you completely disregard the rural areas in the united states. Hunting alone would push this into asb territory.

In France hunting is among the most numerous practised sport (more than football, damn it - there are more than 1 million hunters !) so there are a number of 22 long riffles here and there. Yet that doesn't prevent strict gun control. And interestingly enough, terrorists doesn't seem to realise these riffle are non-secured and numerous - they rather blow themselves with home made explosives, or attack FAMAS-armed soldiers with... machettes.
When you think about it, a lone wolf with a single 22 long riffle could make a slaughter.
 
This is basically impossible in practice. In the 1930s, a substantial percentage of the population was still rural and one would be hard pressed to find too many farms where there were not firearms of some kind kept for various purposes, including self-defense due to the dearth of law enforcement in more remote areas such as in the West. If such a law were passed, it would be widely disregarded and it would be impossible to enforce in any case. Perhaps the best one could hope for would be a ban on handguns and automatic weapons. But a blanket ban that includes long guns? Not going to happen.
 
Top