By Stephen P. Halbrook
Rating: 3 out of 5 stars 
   
   
When I was offered 
Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and "Enemies of the State
 to review, I was filled with quite a bit of curiosity. In 2013, when 
there seems to be a shooting a day by some disgruntled person, there is 
quite a discussion going on about gun control and the 2nd amendment. A 
lot of it on both sides is hyperbolic and weak with facts. One of those 
analogies you see quite often on the anti-gun control side is about the 
Third Reich in Germany in the 30s and 40s. The basic argument is that 
Nazi Germany had gun control and it either led to or was an important 
factor in the rise of Hitler and it could happen here. On the other 
side, the pro-gun control side states that using this is a ridiculous 
statement in that gun control was not the reason that the Third Reich 
occurred. So a serious, non-hyperbolic look at what actually went on in 
Germany during the rise of Hitler could actually be helpful to know. 
The
 first thing to be aware of is who wrote the book and who published it. 
And, for that matter,  who is reviewing it. Stephen P. Halbrook has 
written extensively on gun rights and the second amendment. The 
publisher is the Independent Institute, a  Libertarian think tank whose 
basic stance on this topic is that any restriction on gun control, no 
matter how small, is anti-constitutional. My own position is that I 
support the second amendment but understand that some restrictions, like
 gun registration, may be necessary to protect that right and to prevent
 abuses, just like there are minimal restrictions to the right to free 
speech and the right to assembly to protect people against irresponsible
 and harmful behavior. In the arena of gun control debate, I would 
probably be considered moderate or in the middle. In most other things, I
 would definitely be considered liberal. So there is the philosophical 
starting points for all to see.
My first reaction to this book 
was how well researched and devoid of preaching this book is. Halbrook 
did an impressive job of researching his subject and preventing his 
viewpoint from overpowering the facts. He starts his look into German 
gun control laws in 1918 when gun possession was pretty much prohibited 
and severely punished. He continues to the gun control laws of 1928 by 
the relatively liberal Wiemar Republic that allowed possession of 
firearms but called for national registration. In the 30s the Nazis took
 control of the country and used these laws to firther restrict gun 
possession and to search for and find arms possessed by those they felt 
were a threat to the regime. In 1938, a  new law was passed that forbade
 "enemies of the state", and specifically Jews, to possess firearms. The
 Nazis massed an aggressive campaign to seize weapons and arrest anyone 
against their government, securing the control of the country to Hitler 
and the Third Reich.
My synopsis is quick and simple but suffice 
to say Halbrook present detailed evidence of this scenario. Much of this
 evidence is claimed have been made available only recently. The author 
does not claim that the gun control laws caused the rise of Hitler's 
Third Reich but he does make a good case in that it was a significant 
factor in its success and was also a factor in the lack of armed 
resistance in Germany during this time. I also think he made  a good 
case for the idea that any law restricting human actions, not just gun 
control laws in my opinion, have consequences and should be monitored 
for the potential of abuse by the government.
I really admired 
Halbrook's research and presentation. The historical facts seem not in 
dispute. However what can be in dispute is the intent and conclusion of 
the author and the publisher. For the question now is how much of this 
can be related to our current national and world environment.  While 
Halbrook's book for the most part appears "to the facts" there are 
occasional statements that made me wonder. In the introduction of this 
book, the author states a movement in the United States exists that 
claims firearms  should only be allowed for the military and police. 
That seems odd to me since I know of no group that takes that extreme 
and, if there is, it would be a very insignificant movement. I do know 
that pro-gun registration groups are commonly attacked as wanting to 
take's guns away from everyone when it is simply not true, I wondered if
 what I read was an example of that mentality. Another instance happens 
when the author relates an instance in the 30s in which a German Nazi 
attacks a Jewish family with a blunt weapon and a gun.  The author 
implies that this incident in another culture would be used as 
propaganda against the Aryan using the weapon. I was very mystified 
until I realized that these sentences could have been written in 2013 
during or after the incident in which George Zimmerman shot Trayvon 
Martin with a gun and could be implying Zimmerman was used in some form 
of propaganda attack, even though what actually happened is still 
disputed in most circles. I may be totally off here but I can't think of
 any other interpretation. I would love to ask the author what he was 
meaning or implying when he wrote that paragraph.
For the most 
part, Halbrook wisely leaves us to make our own conclusion but he is 
certainly trying to lead us to certain ones. I have my own questions 
needing answers in order to offer a conclusion. For instance, there is 
no doubt that Germany's laws, even those of the alleged "Liberal" Wiemar
 Republic, were much more restricted than anything existing or even 
proposed in America.  Is it fair to compare one country with a tradition
 of second amendment gun rights to a country where such rights would be 
basically unheard of. Also, taking the current world situation in mind, 
all countries in Europe and Northern America, in other words most 
developing countries, have gun control or registration with America's 
laws being the weakest. I would be hard put to see where any of those 
democratic countries are in danger of heading toward tyranny at this 
time even if certain extreme conservative groups love to yell words like
 "Tyranny"  when addressing the current administration.
Another 
interesting conclusion that the author makes is this. If there were not 
gun control registration laws in Germany, there could have been an 
effective resistance by both Jews and people against the Third Reich. 
That is one of those speculations that is hard to prove but I would 
essentially agree with it in the abstract. However, I do want to point 
out it is not a slam dunk. It is good to remember that at about the same
 time and across the Atlantic, Japanese-Americans were being rounded up 
into relocation camps with no apparent opposition and resistance despite
 the existence of the second amendment.
I do think we need to be 
very careful at what solutions we use even though I think national gun 
registration is essentially a sensible solution if done correctly. What I
 don't understand is why conservative groups, meaning in this case 
Republicans, are so concerned about the possible abuses of gun control 
laws while they actively pass laws that force pregnant women into 
invasive ultra-sound procedures just for considering their legal birth 
control options or pass voter ID laws that will effectively curtail the 
right of minorities and women to vote under the guise of preventing 
non-existent voter fraud.
So I think the conclusions can still be
 argued. But I do commend the author and the publishing country for 
providing a sane and well researched look at a part of history that is 
usually drowned in insinuations and exaggerations. I think it would be 
good for both sides to read this book, weight the information and the 
discuss the right way to address gun control issues using more sense and
 less accusations.
I want to thank the author, the Independent 
Institute and Netgalley for allowing me to read and receive this book. I
 suspect the author and publishing company may not be happy with some of
 my review but hope they will take solace in the fact that I actually 
enjoyed and work and found it informative. I also hope they appreciate 
that, in this particular instance, they were not preaching to the choir.