Gun Control in the Third Reich
Page 6
The provision further amended the 1928 law to provide that “firearms (ammunition) acquisition permits or permits to carry firearms may be issued only to persons of undoubted reliability, and only upon proof of need.”32 This newly added “need” requirement for acquisition permits, which previously applied only to carry permits, racheted up the existing “reliability” requirement to give police unlimited discretion. Who “needed” a firearm for self-defense when the police protected society and sport shooting and hunting were not were really a “need”?
The 1928 law was further amended to impose imprisonment for not less than three months on any person who, without the required permit, acquired or transferred or attempted to acquire or transfer a firearm or ammunition for profit.33 Moreover, a permit was required to manufacture and deal in slashing and thrusting weapons.34
This was yet another emergency decree that Brüning announced to the Reichstag with the declaration: “The president and the government are the sole repositories of constitutional authority and we shall, if necessary, declare a state of emergency if this authority should be challenged by outside organizations.”35
Implementing regulations were decreed on December 10, 1931.36 They began with the following policy statement that was intended to take the sting out of the onerous and confiscatory decree, but that had little legal effect: “The measures against the misuse of weapons are intended to keep weapons from persons who would use them to resolve political disputes. The implementation of these measures should not prevent persons of good reputation, who are unlikely to commit violent acts, from using weapons to defend life and possessions within their enclosed property.”37
The regulations stated that slashing and thrusting weapons included any object that could be used as a weapon, including sharpened spades. They excluded keepsakes and antiques.38 Exempted from the decree were the usual suspects—Reich, state, and local authorities; soldiers; and police.39
On December 12, Reich interior minister Groener wrote additional instructions to the state interior ministers. Permits to acquire and possess arms must be denied “to all persons whom the police do not find to be completely irreproachable.” However, persons with impeccable reliability may possess arms if it does not appear to the police that any and all weapons possession would endanger security in a specific district for local reasons. “The surrender of arms would be ordered only if the maintenance of public security and order necessitates it.” Moreover, members of reputable shooting sports clubs, especially those who use small-bore firearms, could in normal circumstances have arms.40
All these internal instructions softened the stringency of the new decree, but they were not part of the decree, and no citizen could claim them as a legal right. The police had virtually unlimited discretion. Legal-minded members of the public could consult the explanation of the new decree by Werner Hoche, assistant to the interior minister and author of a treatise on the firearms laws.41
On February 8, 1932, Interior Minister Groener supplemented his directions to the states. The police must not to cause irritation to the loyal, peaceable citizens. The decree did not call into question arms that would not be used in violent confrontations, such as arms worn with the dress uniforms of the old and new Wehrmacht, as well as sabers, swords, and daggers of the naval dress uniforms, given to servicemen when they retired from service. He repeated the following admonition: “In this context I would hereby like to draw the attention of the State governments to the secure storage of the lists of persons who have registered their weapons. Precautions must be taken that these lists cannot, in local disturbances, fall into the hands of radical elements. For this purpose, it is recommended that the lists not be stored in single police precincts or at similar local places, but be secured in the custody of the respective central districts.”42
Pursuant to the 1931 decree, various jurisdictions required that all firearms, ammunition, and other weapons be registered with the police. In 1938, just before the Night of the Broken Glass, Berlin’s records were available to identify Jewish firearm owners. An illustrative arrest report noted that “the Jew Alfred Flatow was found to be in possession of” firearms and hand weapons. “The arms were registered at Police Station 13 on January 26, 1932.”43
Debate ensued in the German states as to whether to require registration. Brandenburg, whose capital was Potsdam and which is adjacent to Berlin, rejected registration. Potsdam’s police president noted that “the order enacted by the Police President of Berlin on the compulsory registration of the ownership of firearms and ammunition” under the 1931 decree “has led to the false impression that the same compulsory registration exists within the police district of Potsdam.” “Thus, because of this numerous inhabitants of this police district have sent me compulsory registrations.” Not unexpectedly, “the predominant registrations by the residents in the greater province here are by retired officers in possession of army pistols, carbines, and unserviceable carbines.” He noted of a 1927 decree: “The confiscation of these single weapons was usually met with considerable resistance by the owners, who protested that they had only kept the arms in their possession as souvenirs.”44
On February 20, 1932, the president of the Potsdam government asked each district administrator (Landrat) in Brandenburg to opine on whether arms registration would be necessary and effective.45 Rural districts disapproved, whereas urban districts—with the exception of Potsdam—approved. The Landrat of Westhavelland explained his opposition to registration:
[O]nly the orderly and peaceful population would register at a low rate existing weapons for hunting or protection. The unruly part of the population will on no account register arms. We would thus receive only such registrations of little interest. An evil I see in compulsory registration is that absolutely peaceful and harmless people who fail to declare a weapon from ignorance or neglect are then exposed to every hostile denunciation. By the way, I do not believe that any political group has stockpiled any significant arms in the province. Until now all planned searches have yielded nothing but old rusty rifles that are no longer usable for the defense of the inhabitants.46
The head of the district police of Brandenburg supported registration, noting that “firearms may be possessed by persons who could be violent but are unknown by the police, and they may conceivably carry and use firearms unlawfully.”47 The mayor of Eberswalde similarly noted that “members of radical groups have weapons. Firearms are repeatedly found in searches in unauthorized hands.” “The duty to surrender arms set forth in” the 1928 Firearms Law “has been ignored despite publication in the press.”48 He cited the section of the law requiring ineligible persons to surrender firearms immediately.49 He did not suggest why such persons would now register them.
The Landrat of Teltow, a suburb of Berlin but in the province of Brandenburg, endorsed registration based on its successful implementation by the Berlin police president. Referring to a report showing that “arms have recently been found during searches of suspicious persons,” he noted that “unauthorized arms still exist in the population” and thus recommended registration. “However in my opinion it will achieve only a limited success, since many weapon owners presumably will not obey the order to register their weapons.”50
The appended report to which he referred included seizures of arms from only ten persons over a two-month period in late 1931 and early 1932. Five seizures were from Communists: a Model 08 pistol with two loaded magazines taken from a worker returning from a meeting in Berlin; a pistol found at a parade; and the following weapons seized in searches of three local apartments of workers on the same date: three pistols with thirty-six cartridges, one pistol, and a rubber hose with lead filling.
Three seizures were from Nazis identified as workers: an iron rod seized in a brawl; a pistol seized in a car; and a 7.65-mm pistol with ten cartridges found in an investigation into a shooting. Finally, two persons whose political affiliations were not identified were subjected to the following seizures: a Model 0
8 Lugar pistol with seven cartridges taken from a worker during a strike as well as two Model 98 military rifles, a revolver, a 7.65-mm pistol, and four hundred cartridges possessed for self-protection.
The data of arms seizures from “suspicions persons” given in the report admittedly did not support the efficiency of registration—the only item seized in a brawl was a steel rod, an unlikely subject of registration.
Potsdam’s police president opined that registration was neither necessary nor effective.51 Given this opposition by the police chief of the state’s largest city, it is not surprising that Brandenburg did not decree the mandatory registration of firearms.
As an example of a registration decree, the interior minister of the Free State Baden ordered the following on January 6, 1932, an order that was still on the books in 1936, three years after the Nazis came to power:
The possession of firearms subject to the regulations implementing the Law on Firearms and Ammunition as well as of striking and thrusting weapons (§ 1 of the Law Against the Misuse of Weapons) is, in the dominion of the Free State Baden, to be declared by the possessor to his local District Office (Police Headquarters). Articles will also be considered weapons if they have been specially modified to give them the character of a weapon, e.g., shoulder straps with metal inserts and spades sharpened for use as weapons.
The declaration for weapons already in possession must be made by February 6, 1932, otherwise within one week after their subsequent acquisition.
The declaration is to be made in writing. It must contain the first and last name, place of birth and birth date, occupation, place of residence and address of the possessor and must list the type and quantity of each individual weapon. Other information may be also be required. As proof of declaration, the District Office (Police Headquarters) will issue a certificate of declaration at no charge.52
Exempt from the registration requirements were government agencies, police, military, and certain private entities, such as transportation companies. Also exempt were persons whose weapons would otherwise be registered with the police by reason of other laws, including persons with permits to acquire or carry firearms and persons with an annual hunting license.53
Regarding the authority to confiscate registered arms from specific individuals or the people at large, the decree provided: “The police agency to whom weapons and ammunition must be surrendered upon their demand is the District Office (Police Headquarters). The surrender can either be by special order for an individual or by general order. In the latter case, the surrender order must be posted as a public notice.” The licensed hunter was exempt for hunting arms “as long as there are no reservations regarding his reliability.” Having a permit to acquire or carry a firearm “does not rule out the mandatory surrender of weapons and ammunition upon demand.”54
Commercial records of the manufacture and disposition of thrusting and striking weapons were required. Finally, reprints of the decree, the 1931 laws against misuse of weapons, and the Reich registration decree were required to be conspicuously displayed in the sales rooms of arms businesses.55
Similar registration decrees were issued by Oppeln, the seat of Upper Silesia in Prussia,56 and by Allenstein in East Prussia.57 Nazi courts would later cite both to uphold convictions for unregistered firearms.
Determining which jurisdictions issued decrees requiring registration of weapons would be a major study, but the Reich’s 1931 decree in itself suggests that major areas, in particular more populated centers where disorder had occurred, most likely did so. Moreover, some jurisdictions exercised their powers to declare emergencies and to confiscate firearms. Gunsmith Rudolf Reger of Königsberg, the capital of East Prussia, wrote to President Hindenburg on March 3, 1932, pleading for compensation because the new arms law caused a depression in the arms trade. He referred to a statement by an official of the East Prussian government: “In a meeting, the local government told me that the tightened emergency decree on arms registration has actually had an effect like hitting water, since only the decent and quiet members of the public have registered arms, while nothing has been registered by the radical elements. However, it has had the effect that no one buys a firearm anymore, due to the fear that arms will be confiscated as has been the pattern in some of the governmental districts in the West.”58
The confiscations apparently did not just pinpoint the troublemakers and leave law-abiding citizens alone. In the first quarter of 1932, the SA stepped up attacks on Communists, killing some, and fought with Reichsbanner members in the streets. Police raided the SA headquarters in Berlin. A dispatch by Frederic M. Sackett, the U.S. ambassador in Germany, noted reports of preparations for a Nazi putsch, adding: “To verify these reports the Prussian Government had ordered the police raids…. The confiscated documentary material, said Minister Severing, had proved that the Nazis systematically spied on the civil authorities, the police and the Reichswehr in connection with their plans to seize power by force.” Seized documents resembled “similar disclosures in the past of Communist subversive activities. This is not surprising since many former members and leaders of the Red Front are known to have become members of the Nazi storm detachments following the suppression of the Communist organization.” Sackett continued: “The acts of treason attributed to the Nazis, it appears, consisted of a planned attempt to seize the arms of the Reichswehr, particularly in the eastern frontier sections of Germany, for their struggle against the republican section of the population, notably the Iron Front, from which they expected stiff resistance against a Nazi dictatorial regime. It is pointed out that by disarming the Reichswehr the Nazis would have impaired the national defense by exposing sections of the country to a Polish invasion, and severe punishment is demanded for the Nazi instigators of the plot.”59
On April 14, 1932, President Hindenburg banned the SA, including its Elite Guard (Schutzstaffeln, SS), headed by Heinrich Himmler. Berlin police raided hundreds of SA locations, including dormitories, restaurants, and even the home of Wolf Heinrich Graf von Helldorf, who would become the Berlin police president under the Nazis.60
Meanwhile, the prosecution of paperwork violations under the 1928 Firearms Law continued. The Regional Court of Kassel held that the defendants were guilty of obtaining firearms without an acquisition license, even though they had police permits to carry firearms,61 which were more difficult to obtain.
By contrast, the Reich Court held that a person who carried a pistol unlawfully and fired it at a police officer in Berlin could be convicted of attempted manslaughter with a firearm, but not separately of unlawful carry. The court conceded that the 1928 law “failed to reduce the spread of firearms among persons leaning to violence and to limit the illegal use of those firearms. It was therefore necessary to increase the sanctions imposed for illegal assaults with firearms.”62
The firearm laws had caused an economic crisis in the arms industry, the Prussian minister for trade and industry wrote to the Reich interior minister on February 29, 1932. Urgent matters, he stated, included internal security and the political unrest of unemployed gunsmiths, the value of the arms industry for national defense, and amendments to the law to help the industry. Conditions in Suhl and adjoining Thuringia contributed to a radicalization of the population. Regulations that were not absolutely necessary to the police interest should be moderated to prevent the collapse of the industry. He argued that exceptions should be considered for long arms, which—unlike handguns—did not figure in offenses involving arms misuse. “The misuse of long arms is probably only to be feared in larger organized rebellions.” Even then, hunting rifles, Schuetzen rifles, and high-quality arms would not play an essential role in any such rebellions.63
The Gun Making Association of Zeller-Mehliser (Verband Zeller-Mehliser Waffenfabriken) in Thuringia wrote to the interior minister of that state to present a proposal to exempt from the law hunting firearms of various types as well as Flobert rifles and pistols, which were low-power, single-shot guns used for sport and
plinking.64 The minister forwarded the proposal to the Reich interior minister, recommending approval.65 Reich interior minister Groener rejected it, however, claiming that decontrol even of Flobert pistols was a threat to internal security.66
However, Groener wrote an urgent missive to the state governments supporting a narrow liberalization. He recognized that, from the Versailles Treaty to the 1928 Firearms Law and now the 1931 decree, the noose on the firearms industry was steadily tightening. Moderation of the current rules was in order. That did not mean that it would be made easier for the ordinary citizen to acquire ordinary arms. Instead, expensive hunting arms, such as those with gold engraving, which only the wealthy could afford, would be the subject of a limited deregulation: “The large size of these arms, the unwieldiness of their cartridges, and their slow rate of fire render them unsuitable for use in political riots. Furthermore, their relatively high price makes their acquisition in the present economic situation more and more a luxury item, precluding any tendency that members of radical organizations would be armed with these costly arms.”67
In June 1932, the regulations were amended to exempt narrowly defined hunting and sporting arms from the requirement of an acquisition permit.68 This included certain double-and triple-barreled combination shotguns and rifles selling for at least 135–200 marks, which would have been several weeks wages for the average worker. It included a narrow class of target rifles, those weighing at least four kilos and using rimmed 8.15-by-46-mm cartridges with lead bullets. Also included were guns of at least one meter overall length and costing at least 200 marks. All these arms were highly specialized and expensive guns that the average person would not have possessed.
The new regulations had a single provision for the common person: a permit for possession of .22-caliber cartridges would no longer be required unless the quantity exceeded 1,000 rounds.69