I think the harcourt article is excellent, both because it provides additional context (particular in regards to the '19 and '28 weimar law), and in fact directly agrees to the basic premise of the argument.  It is widely accepted (harcourt, library of congress) that the early laws were targeted directly against the Nazis, and other paramilitary groups that were threatening, and attempting to overthrow the weimar republic. (The government having effectively disarmed by the surrender terms of wwI was unable to control the armed groups engaging in what we today would probably term gang warfare). As late as '32 Heinrich Bruening attempted to ban the SA and SS (see rise and fall of the 3rd reich) (Ironically setting up the situation that enabled the Nazis to legally take control). The subsequent laws enacted by Hitler were to a) rearm the nazis, in particular the private army SAs. 2) ensure familiarazation of  the about to be conscripted public with firearms usage. 3)ensure the  disarm all political opponents, specifically calling out jews.  Harcourt repeatedly and explicitly gives up the game - sure he disagrees with the NRAs use of nazi imagery in modern debate. Yes he says "the nazi's were not in general pro gun control".  Both of those prior arguments are straw men, which do not in any way disprove the core history being argued - the core history which Harcourt specifically and explicitly admits to "Hitler imposed regulations prohibiting Jewish persons from possessing any dangerous weaponsincluding firearms. The Nazi regime implemented this prohibition by confiscating weapons, including guns, from Jewish persons, and subsequently engaged in genocide of
the Jewish population" or "To be sure, the Nazis were intent on killing Jewish persons and used the gun laws and regulations to further the genocide". Nobody disagrees that Hitler armed his private army (SA, party), while disarming the people he was about to exterminate. Harcourt discusses this directly as well, quoting The Nazi minister of the interior "“If these provisions guarantee that no enemies of the National Socialist state possess any weapons, then it is justifiable and appropriate to relax the current limiting provisions of the Weapons Law for the population faithful to the state". To  (Saul)WP:FRINGE You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. (/Saul) What part is fringe? That the nazis implemented gun control? That the gun control specifically targeted Jews? That there are a plethora of memos, diaries, and documents saying "Go attack the jews, they are disarmed so you shouldn't have any resistance"? That the jews were later exterminated? Please identify the specific facts which you think are fringe.