Were Guns “Much More” Strictly Regulated in the 1920s and 1930s?

Were Guns "Much More" Strictly Regulated in the 1920s and 1930s?
Were Guns “Much More” Strictly Regulated in the 1920s and 1930s?
NRA - Institute for Legislative Action
NRA – Institute for Legislative Action

Fairfax, VA -(AmmoLand.com)- Last week, Time magazine published a piece that pushes the narrative that today's firearms laws are permissive in comparison to those of the early 20th century.

Titled, “Guns Were Much More Strictly Regulated in the 1920s and 1930s than They Are Today,” the piece contends that “Those who look to America's past to extol a time when nothing stood between an American and a gun need to look again.”

The obvious goal of the work is to convince the uninformed that any notions they might have about America's long-standing culture of gun ownership should pose no barrier to future restrictions, particularly on the ownership of semi-automatic firearms.

The piece was written by long-time anti-gun author and SUNY Cortland Political Science Professor Robert J. Spitzer. Since the 1990s, Spitzer has been writing columns and books advocating for gun control; often focusing on semi-automatic firearms. In these pieces Spitzer pushed – now mostly recognized as silly – misconceptions about popular semi-autos, such as “The lighter weight, compact design, and pistol grips give the ability to ‘spray fire' – often from the hip,” and, “Their concealability adds to their criminal appeal.”

Further, Spitzer advocated for the – now thoroughly rejected – notion that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to bear arms. In his 1995 book, The Politics of Gun Control, Spitzer claimed, “The desire to treat the Second Amendment as a constitutional touchstone by gun control opponents is understandable… Such claims are, however, without historical, constitutional, or legal foundation.”

However, the thesis laid out in the column's title only works if one completely ignores the federal government's entrance into the field of firearms control, and subsequent restrictions on firearms enacted in several states. In the 1920s and 1930s, Americans purchasing firearms could simply order rifles or shotguns by mail right to their front door. The Gun Control Act of 1968 brought about much of the modern federal gun control regime, including federal prohibitions certain categories of persons from purchasing or possessing firearms, importation restrictions, and the licensing and regulation of firearms dealers. The Brady Bill was passed in 1993, which requires background checks on those purchasing a firearm from a dealer. In the 1990s and 2000s, several states restricted access to semi-automatic firearms, and some states have continually expanded their categories of prohibited persons. A quick glance at two of BATFE's publications, the “Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide,” and “State Laws and Published Ordinances,” makes it abundantly clear that 2015 America isn't some sort of unfettered gun rights utopia in comparison to the early 20th century.

Perhaps most bizarre about Spitzer and his work is that even after decades of advocating for gun restrictions, the professor still appears to know little of the firearms he seeks to ban, botching terminology at every turn. In his latest piece, Spitzer notes that modern hunters are likely to use something he describes as a “semi-automatic long barrel gun.” Later, he claims that in the early 20th century states had little patience for “semi-automatic firing married to the ability to fire multiple rounds without reloading.” Anyone with a cursory knowledge of firearms would know that the latter characteristic is a prerequisite of the former. Further on, Spitzer uses the term “large capacity bullet magazines.”

Over the years Spitzer has been wrong on the history of gun control, wrong on the Second Amendment, and displayed a severe lack of basic firearms knowledge.

Unfortunately, when it comes to an anti-gun periodical like Time, the ability to further the publication's political agenda, rather than accuracy, appears to be the chief requirement for publication.

About the NRA-ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

For more information, please visit: www.nra.org. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at NRA on Facebook and Twitter @NRA.

AmmoLand Join the NRA Banner
AmmoLand Encourages you to Join the NRA today!
  • 5 thoughts on “Were Guns “Much More” Strictly Regulated in the 1920s and 1930s?

    1. Arguing against this narrative is pointless. It’s a diversion and misses the point. So what if guns WERE more regulated in the 20s-30s (even if they weren’t)?? Debunking a pointless argument is wasteful of time and money.

      Using past illegalities as a basis for current and future ones is not valid. When was the last time someone argued we should have slavery back….since it was legal in the past?

      It’s time (long past time actually) for us to stop engaging these ridiculous rhetoric liberals and their drive to redefine the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment was NOT written to “protect hunting”, it was NOT written only for state militia’s (national guard), it WAS written to affirm that the PEOPLE had every right to possess and keep weapons to defend themselves ultimately from an oppressive government and the force of tyranny. Every writing of the founding fathers confirms this. Whenever a moron liberal says “You don’t need a 30-round clip to hunt deer…” our first response shouldn’t be to chide them for their ignorant use of the word “clip”, it shouldn’t be to argue about the use of full capacity magazines for hunting or sport shooting. Our first response should be to inform the ignorant little communist that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and our right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Gun ownership registries, magazine bans, ammo bans, laws dictating how a gun is to work…..these are all INFRINGEMENTS in any accepted definition of the word.

      Time to stop fighting battles on their terms.

    2. Why is it that democrats and other liberals are such good liars? Is it genetic, does it come from training, osmosis? And they actually get paid to peddle loads and loads of BS on a daily basis. Is this a great country or what! Maybe their First Amendment rights should be restricted.

      1. It’s been my experience that liberals I’ve talked with really believe what they are saying, because “Fox lies.”
        There fore, everything any conservatives, because they get all their info from Fox, don’t really know anything.
        When I try to parse the Second Amendment, for example, I’m told that the “people” actually means “militia.” When I explain that the writers had the perfect opportunity to use “militia” when writing it, I have actually been told that the Framers were a bunch of hicks who barely knew how to write. Seriously.

    3. Any narrative that tries to make these claims is false and Time simply is trying to rewrite history to suit its agenda. In 1930 I could walk into many hardware stores and purchase a Thompson SMG off the shelf, bring it home and shoot in my back yard. A 13 year old not only could receive as a gift ANY firearm, but could also purchase one, if he had the money. While it is true there were fewer guns in private hands, that is because there were fewer guns in general! Silly story from a magazine that makes its own news, because it knows its days are numbered!

    4. With a name like ‘Spitzer’ he may consider himself an expert on bullets? Then again with a name like ‘Spitzer’ he may be an expert on ‘high class escorts’?

    Comments are closed.