iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Adam Winkler

GET UPDATES FROM Adam Winkler

Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today?

Posted: 09/09/11 04:42 PM ET

After a decision by the Supreme Court affirming the right of individuals to own guns, then-Chicago Mayor Richard Daley sarcastically said, "Then why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we'll settle it in the streets?" This is a common refrain heard in the gun debate. Gun control advocates fear -- and gun rights proponents sometimes hope -- the Second Amendment will transform our cities into modern-day versions of Dodge.

Yet this is all based on a widely shared misunderstanding of the Wild West. Frontier towns -- places like Tombstone, Deadwood, and Dodge -- actually had the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation.

In fact, many of those same cities have far less burdensome gun control today then they did back in the 1800s.

Guns were obviously widespread on the frontier. Out in the untamed wilderness, you needed a gun to be safe from bandits, natives, and wildlife. In the cities and towns of the West, however, the law often prohibited people from toting their guns around. A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas in 1873, the heart of the Wild West era, would have seen signs declaring, "Leave Your Revolvers At Police Headquarters, and Get a Check."

A check? That's right. When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you'd check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not.

In my new book, Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America, there's a photograph taken in Dodge City in 1879. Everything looks exactly as you'd imagine: wide, dusty road; clapboard and brick buildings; horse ties in front of the saloon. Yet right in the middle of the street is something you'd never expect. There's a huge wooden billboard announcing, "The Carrying of Firearms Strictly Prohibited."

While people were allowed to have guns at home for self-protection, frontier towns usually barred anyone but law enforcement from carrying guns in public.

When Dodge City residents organized their municipal government, do you know what the very first law they passed was? A gun control law. They declared that "any person or persons found carrying concealed weapons in the city of Dodge or violating the laws of the State shall be dealt with according to law." Many frontier towns, including Tombstone, Arizona--the site of the infamous "Shootout at the OK Corral"--also barred the carrying of guns openly.

Today in Tombstone, you don't even need a permit to carry around a firearm. Gun rights advocates are pushing lawmakers in state after state to do away with nearly all limits on the ability of people to have guns in public.

Like any law regulating things that are small and easy to conceal, the gun control of the Wild West wasn't always perfectly enforced. But statistics show that, next to drunk and disorderly conduct, the most common cause of arrest was illegally carrying a firearm. Sheriffs and marshals took gun control seriously.

Although some in the gun community insist that more guns equals less crime, in the Wild West they discovered that gun control can work. Gun violence in these towns was far more rare than we commonly imagine. Historians who've studied the numbers have determined that frontier towns averaged less than two murders a year. Granted, the population of these towns was small. Nevertheless, these were not places where duels at high noon were commonplace. In fact, they almost never occurred.

Why is our image of the Wild West so wrong? Largely for the same reason these towns adopted gun control laws in the first place: economic development. Residents wanted limits on guns in public because they wanted to attract businesspeople and civilized folk. What prospective storeowner was going to move to Deadwood if he was likely to be robbed when he brought his daily earnings to the bank?

Once the frontier was closed, those same towns glorified a supposedly violent past in order to attract tourists and the businesses to serve them. Gunfights were extremely rare in frontier towns, but these days you can see a reenactment of the one at the OK Corral several times a day. Don't forget to buy a souvenir!

The story of guns in America is far more complex and surprising than we've often been led to believe. We've always had a right to bear arms, but we've also always had gun control. Even in the Wild West, Americans balanced these two and enacted laws restricting guns in order to promote public safety. Why should it be so hard to do the same today?

 

Follow Adam Winkler on Twitter: www.twitter.com/adamwinkler

After a decision by the Supreme Court affirming the right of individuals to own guns, then-Chicago Mayor Richard Daley sarcastically said, "Then why don't we do away with the court system and go back ...
After a decision by the Supreme Court affirming the right of individuals to own guns, then-Chicago Mayor Richard Daley sarcastically said, "Then why don't we do away with the court system and go back ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 862
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (8 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WWZander
Where were you the day the Music died?
11:06 AM on 09/29/2011
Is this some sort of propoganda to scare people an make them believe fact from fiction? How in the hell can you compare 1879 to 2011? 142 years difference, alot changes in that amount of time, trying to make any sort of comparision like the author has done, is a bad idea. For one thing, people don't think the same way today, as they did then, thats a fact. Another fact, corruption then an now have changed, not so much as what an who is doing it, just the way it is being done, back then, people usually didn't care much if you knew, you opened your mouth, you were taking your life into your hands, today, you open your mouth, they put you into witness protection. Another thing the author said, that people should recall, "statistics show that, next to drunk and disorderly conduct, the most common cause of arrest was illegally carrying a firearm", obviously the law didn't scare many people, was the punishemnt a fine? Is so, no wonder law enforcement took it so seriously, nothing like increasing the town revenues by increasing the rate of collecting fines, as if the sheriff, or the town itself was being run by corrupt people, what better way to make money, hide behind the law.
Please do people a favor, if your going to write a coluum, maybe it would be prudent to give what your writing more thought.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jerry Bourbon
12:00 PM on 09/25/2011
"Today in Tombstone, you don't even need a permit to carry around a firearm."

And, guess what. TODAY, the crime rate in Tombstone, and AZ in general is a LOT lower than it was during "old west" days.
07:42 AM on 09/15/2011
Wow! Winkler has a photo of a sign in 1879 Dodge City tha prohibited guns in town. He failed to mention that at that time Dodge city was called " The Wickedest City in America" whose law enforcement was run by a corrupt organization called the Dodge city Gang, which also, run most of the politics that selectively enforced laws as in the case of the " Dodge city War". Of course the law enforcement in Dodge didn't want anybody else to have guns. It was corrupt. The Professor uses that as an example? While ignoring the citizens of Northfield Min. who where armed in town that enabled them to shot at the outlaw James gang that thought they had an easy bank robbery. Deadwood was lawless town and Tombstone was run by the corrupt Earp gang that got involved in the Dodge city War. Fine Examples of the Wild West. That would be like using DC's high murder rate as the ideal city for 2011.

A hundred years from now Winklers followers will write that in 2007, DC and Chicago there were very strict gun laws; ignoring the fact that the SCOTUS ruled them Unconstitutional to justify future gun law.
01:30 PM on 09/18/2011
This is very good info.. I have some reading to do.
06:40 AM on 09/19/2011
I wikied Dodge city for quick reference. As for Deadwood there are many other souces. For Northefield Min. I remeber that on the story of the James gang on the History Channel. There is another one on the History Channel about the northwest during the so called wild west time when the community took up arms to enforce the laws because local law enforcement was corrupt like how it is now in Mexico. But the Mexican citizens don't have that option with the strict gun control laws in that country. That community in the northwest had very low crime with citizens armed.
11:04 PM on 09/13/2011
Actually quite an accurate article.

Which is a freshening perspective to read on Huffington Post when it comes to guns.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
rikilii
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
12:17 AM on 09/14/2011
Except for the failure to inform the reader that the homicide rate in many of those towns was a factor of 10 or more higher than it is in just about any city today.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WWZander
Where were you the day the Music died?
11:12 AM on 09/29/2011
People are afraid to live in the real world, hiding in their fantasy protects them. Obviously, their form of accuracy, an true accuracy are dependent on the the fantasy they are immersed in, at the time. Sometimes it is safer to agree, then to tell them the truth, tearing down the fabric of their reality could forever warp their being. Sad how common sense can't be taught ...
05:05 PM on 09/13/2011
Obviously, Winkler did not give a very convincing argument that gun control worked any better on the frontier than it does in today's urban cesspools like holdouts unlucky enough to not be in "shall issue" states. Selective gun confiscation or temporary gun checking during rowdy nights of drinking, whoring, and gambling by teenage cowboys fresh off the trail was not endangering those same cowboys from a criminal subculture that dwelled in those cow towns. I think Winkler wanted to "reinvent" a gun control argument since contemporary gun control in America is dead -- righteously so -- and will likely stay that way.
04:51 AM on 09/13/2011
Shhh! The NRA doesn't like it when historical reality disrupts their carefully crafted fantasies.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Rooster Coburn
Less Gov't + More Responsibility = A Better World
07:24 AM on 09/13/2011
Could be hoplophobia,  but why take chances? Get checked out by a mental health professional of your own choosing. There are highly successful interventions for this condition.
12:14 PM on 09/13/2011
Yes there should be an intervention for the NRA. Their ignoring of reality has lead to 30,000 Americans being killed by gun use yearly.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DaveNYC
07:12 PM on 09/13/2011
Is this a carefully crafted NRA fantasy? "At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry." When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose--confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, in the course of analyzing the meaning of "carries a firearm" in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that '[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.' We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of 'bear arms.' Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of 'offensive or defensive action,' it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bonnie Larkin
Oathkeeper AND NRA member
12:00 AM on 09/13/2011
Lets look at the facts here-- in Dodge City - Wyatt Earp was the sheriff that introduced the ' no guns in town policy ' BUT --- Mr Winkler and the rest of you gun control freaks -- Sheriff Earp was not bond and tied by ' POLICTICAL CORRECTNESS '
Unlike today where criminals are afforded more rights that law abiding citizens - Sheriff Earp could and DID uphold the law, if you messed up in Dodge City - HE dealt with you. Now if a criminal robs you the ACLU , defense lawyers, shrinks that blame the victim [ cause they drive a good car - or have a ring - or a wallet etc ] that the criminal thinks should belong to them-- the criminal gets off scot free and IF the law abiding citizen survives the attack - to say the least their insurance goes up , they never get their stuff back .
We live in a crime ridden society - and those of you that fell to understand that might one day find out the hard way -- ME ? Esp if my granddaughters are with me - well lets just say I am NOT a victim kinda gal.
04:50 AM on 09/13/2011
The sheriff toting a gun is different than a civilian toting one. Today the US imprisons more people than other nations. So much for the idea of criminals getting away with robbing you. Sounds like a victim of NRA pandering.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bonnie Larkin
Oathkeeper AND NRA member
06:03 AM on 09/13/2011
Your versions of numbers - [ population now vs then ] is of very little value when you find yourself in victim status,
Criminals own more guns in this country than law abiding citizens - your beef with the NRA - only shows your lack of knowlegde. As far as the numbers in prison -- IF --- IF -- we had a better system - there would be more in jail
And I would not need to pack everytime I leave my house
11:52 AM on 09/13/2011
You're RIGHT, just not in the way you emote.
In each criminal/victim encounter the non-cop victim is ALWAYS there, CIVILIAN cops virtually NEVER arrives in time to even arrest a suspect, much less use their guns.
But there I go using facts instead of the Anti-Freedom bigot emotions again.

The vast majority of law enforcement officers retire without EVER using their gun outside of the very RARE training session. This is because cops seldom arrive "on scene" until the scene is safe and secure.
photo
OdinsEye
Korean-Latino cop and retired military combat vet
08:52 PM on 09/13/2011
Wyatt Earp selectively applied the bans on firearms, allowing anyone he liked to continue to carry. He also frequently formed lynch mobs, and was at times an outlaw himself and even a murderer.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bonnie Larkin
Oathkeeper AND NRA member
03:07 AM on 09/14/2011
Soooooo??
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Katzencats
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
03:35 PM on 09/12/2011
Wahhhh! They wanna take our guns!!! Every single, stinkin', time someone writes ANYthing with the word "guns" in it, out comes the wahmbulance.

Yes, the misreading of the SECOND AMENDMENT (cue celestial music & Charlton Heston voiceover) is the holiest of holies to these folk, don'teventhinkaboutit. Yet, when the Patriot Act was first being discussed (directly contradicting the Fourth Amendment), these same people had no problem. Don't wanna bother with a warrant? No prob. Search & seizure with NO grounds? Gotcha covered. Lodging of military without your permission? What are you, a Commie? Why was this no problem? Because the two Houses of Congress passed it. So, it was ok, even if unConstitutional.

It's only when when they think the SECOND AMENDMENT (cue) is somehow in danger they suddenly are concerned with that "GD piece of paper".

Folks, Prof. Winkler wrote a piece about actual gun laws in "The Old West" (aka "Wild West"), NOT legislation to take away your precious hand guns. Try loosening that grip on your pistols & try a tighter grip on reality.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
rikilii
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
04:32 PM on 09/12/2011
He was also dead wrong in his assertion, actual or implied, that such gun laws led to there being lower homicide rates in those towns than they have today.
photo
JimInHouston
Arma virumque cano...
04:58 PM on 09/12/2011
You and your katz are awful cute, but if your understanding of the issues is represented in your hyperbolic and breathless screenplay, it might be better to remain silent.
02:08 PM on 09/12/2011
The problem is that gun control is now, and has always been, a myth, or a pipe-dream. The only people who will abide by any form of gun control laws are the ones who would not use a gun in a manner that is illegal in the first place. So, criminals carry guns to commit crimes. Normall law-abiding citizens then carry guns to protect themselves from becoming a victim, and in so doing become criminals themselves, unless they are fortunate enough to live in a state that allows concealed carry.
11:33 AM on 09/12/2011
The Second step is to marginalize legal gun use and historic precedent. The Revolutionary War was over 200 years ago and the country has not faced a serious threat to its security for 50 years. Confusion has been created about weather gun ownership is tied to Militia membership and the difference between the Militia and the National Guard. This creates an opportunity to minimize the need for civilian arms for the greater defense. Many cities have modern police forces so leave people with the impression that these forces can protect them from all threats. As an example, since the majority of citizens are not currently living in high crime areas or are not involved in crime themselves, these forces alone can be considered as sufficient without personal security measures. It is often helpful to further marginalize civilian arms ownership by portraying gun owners as paranoid, fearful, and to be compensating for some other shortcoming. In today’s modern world, most people no longer have to hunt for food and accordingly, less people are proficient with arms and use them for sport. For profit media outlets rarely report on legal defensive uses of arms since they don’t sell ad space nearly as well as high profile events so, doubt about the value of owning a firearm for personal protection should be easy to impart. Using isolated incidents of the mishandling of arms can further create doubt about their usefulness as well as create uncertainty about their safe use.

http://tinyurl.com/4k346he
12:47 PM on 09/12/2011
Don't you think a licensing system with an educational aspect would help?

Anyway, proximity doesn't sell gun ownership so well in my estimation. How do you defend yourself from stray bullets? Do you combat a drive-by with another drive-by?
02:13 PM on 09/12/2011
What other specifically enumerated Civil Rights do you want restricted? What church you may attend? (Wouldn't want another Jim Jones would we?) Free speech, why not a fine of $1,000,000 for ever lie or deceptive story the media prints or broadcasts . . . or FAIL to tell the public? Like what happened to Thomas Glenn Terry at Shoney's just 2 months after the "Gun Free" Luby's massacre. Or how 2 ARMED students stopped the Virginia Appalachian School of Law murderer, unlike what happened at "Gun Free" Virginia Tech where 32 students were murdered, most AFTER the police were "on scene". Or how the 5 SWAT Teams and many, officers DIDN'T save the children at "Gun Free" Columbine, but instead, TRAPPED the children INSIDE with the MURDERERS; instead of SAVING them like ARMED vice-principal Joel Myrick did at the Pearl High School shooting. (Yes, the Bradys wanted Mr. Myrick prosecuted for "Violation of the 'Gun Free School Zone Law'". Can you really blame them? They make MILLIONS of DOLLARS every time there's a "Gun Free Zone" Massacre.)

The police seldom arrive in time to even arrest a suspect, much less USE their guns.
But, if a police officer actually NEEDED a gun for a call, doesn't logic suggest that the victim the call was made FOR, needed a gun as well?

Are "Drive-bys" ILLEGAL? How do you emote that restricting the Freedom of the LAW-ABIDING, will stop CRIMINALS?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Conlaw Bloganon
Ron Paul 2012!
07:18 PM on 09/12/2011
Inoa,
You may have missed the slight tone of sarcasm in GNBanner's post.
05:01 AM on 09/13/2011
If defensive use of arms was common there would be statistics kept on this. The NRA has been selling the defensive use fantasy to its gullible followers.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Rooster Coburn
Less Gov't + More Responsibility = A Better World
07:27 AM on 09/13/2011
Hoplophobia:  We're shooting for a cure and someday soon we'll find the silver bullet.
11:13 AM on 09/13/2011
If defensive use of guns were actually RARE, the Anti-Freedom bigots (they control the media) would have presented those statistics. Why don't you present a few dozen examples where an ARMED intended victim "made things worse"?

I KNOW! This should be easy (if it were TRUE anyway): Name the U.S. cities, where violent crime rates have skyrocketed with the reduction of gun control laws and restrictions. (That's right, you CAN'T.)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SouPro
Southern. Progressive.
10:22 AM on 09/12/2011
I don't see how this is inconsistent with modern laws in most states that allow concealed carry.

Most states do not allow anyone to conceal carry in their state without a recognized permit. Since some municipalities in the 19th Century did not allow concealed carry, and there was no state permit system, no one in some 19th Century municipalities could carry. Even if a sheriff was subjective about enforcing the law, it's still a recognized authority deciding who shall and who shall not.

Interesting article.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
mackbolan
Libertas inaestimabilis res est
07:35 AM on 09/12/2011
why should it be so hard to enact gun control today...

simple..

the gun control advocates have never met a gun ban they didn't like...
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Rooster Coburn
Less Gov't + More Responsibility = A Better World
03:27 AM on 09/12/2011
Laws against concealed carry are like laws against loitering, vagrancy, gambling, prostitution, public drunkennes­s and the like. While written to be broadly applicable on their face, they are really only intended to give the police a tool to arrest, harass or roust those society deems to be "undesirab­le" and were never intended to be applied to "respectab­le citizens". Basically they are intended to maintain the dominance of the ruling economic and ethnic classes.
See: Watson v. Stone, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (Fla. 1941)
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
rikilii
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
04:35 PM on 09/12/2011
I actually disagree. I am a member of the ruling economic and ethnic classes, and I can assure you that if I walked into NJ carrying a Glock on my hip, I would be promptly arrested, charged, convicted and imprisoned, all that for doing something that is perfectly legal, and of no consequence, across the river.
08:48 PM on 09/12/2011
I would call them experimental laws. The towns in the Old West were just "trying out" different approaches. Like other posters have said, there was no system of licensing of concealed carry. In any case, criminals never cared about such laws anyway
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DaveNYC
02:50 PM on 09/11/2011
Citing a couple long-repealed municipal laws hardly establishes that "frontier towns usually barred anyone but law enforcement from carrying guns in public." In Heller, the Supreme Court specifically found that the majority of Nineteenth Century courts and commentators found that the right to keep and bear arms included a general right to carry guns, subject (sometimes) to the then-permissible requirement that guns be carried in open view. Professor Winkler's argument ignores the Supreme Court's dicussion of this issue and it ignores the cases that the Supreme Court relied upon. Instead, Professor Winkler cites a total of 3 municipal laws and argues that this establishes the much broader proposition that western towns prohibited the carry of firearms.
07:14 PM on 09/11/2011
Right...some random towns like Deadwood, Dodge, and Tombstone. I think you're being a bit pedantic. Contain it just to when those three towns hadn't repealed those municipal laws. Those aren't three towns that lay down quietly in our national mythos, and the point of the article was the disconnect between the way [some] people imagine the West and the West's actual history.

And a predominance of court opinion isn't nearly the same thing as what laws were enforced, so I hardly see what your evidence is. And you say a "majority"? So what. That still implies a division. Who was dissenting, and how well?
photo
JimInHouston
Arma virumque cano...
12:20 PM on 09/12/2011
So you think that the behavior of three towns somehow trumps SCOTUS?
05:05 AM on 09/13/2011
No, Heller found guns are not to be carried outside the home.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DaveNYC
12:52 PM on 09/13/2011
Where did the Court say that? I only saw a qualification about sensitive places such as schools and government buildings. Which are not in people's homes.
05:00 PM on 09/13/2011
Fact: Concealed carry holders misuse their guns less often than the police
Fact: Concealed carry holders are 74 TIMES more law abiding than the general public
Fact: If all qualified people carried a gun crime would drop 98%
Based on Florida stats see Howard Nemerov
See also Tampa Tribune editorial "Tough Crime Laws Work"
"The reality is gun rights and tough on crime laws...have resulted in a safer, more civilized society."
01:34 PM on 09/11/2011
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
also a true ak47 is full auto and automatic weapons are extremely difficult to get legally, and very expensive. And if anyone wants to say no there not a semi auto is what is commonly refered to as auto on news. Semi auto guns are no faster than revolvers look up jerry miculek world record six shots reload six shot in under 3 seconds.
08:56 PM on 09/11/2011
remember that when the bill of rights was written there was NO ARMY or MILITARY the militia was "we the people"
12:16 AM on 09/12/2011
Trur but it was meant for the people not meant to establish a military. "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
12:24 AM on 09/12/2011
I think it was written more from defense of self and a system of keeping government in check.