Please note that there have been some similar questions answered here: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/dailylife#wiki_gun_.28and_other_weapons.29_control

From http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/155aqv/did_ancient_societies_argue_about_arms_control/ u/historianLA answers that:

"In late medieval and early modern Spain, carrying swords and later guns was limited to the nobility (hidalguia). There were a number of sumptuary laws which regulated the public carrying of weapons. Individuals could receive royal licenses to carry arms. Usually such licenses were requested because of an individual's meritorious service or immediate need (self-defense in rural areas etc.)"

They go on to talk about laws in South America as well, if you're interested in learning about that.

From http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1djlr4/have_there_ever_been_debates_for_sword_control/ u/crackdtoothgrin states:

"Throughout Medieval Europe, most people were able to own and (sometimes) carry weapons (including peasants), but that doesn't mean attempts weren't in place to try and curb it. In many cases, the restrictions were usually against carrying in the presence of some higher authority, or carrying them publicly during peacetime.

It's a bit broad to answer this for every country, so the best I can do is give you a few examples of weapon restrictions:

In later Medieval France, peasants couldn't carry things like lances, bows, swords, daggers, or cudgels in peacetime. (Kaeuper; War, Justice, and Public Order)

Swedish King Magnus Ericsson forbade peasants in the Götland areas (especially around the copper mining areas) to carry anything other than a knife to eat with, while allowing their employers the opportunity to have weaponry if there was a risk of them rebelling. Almost a century later, similar laws would be passed against carrying in public spaces, or near the higher nobility (probably as a consequence of Engelbrektsson's rebellions) during the assizes. (Silfverstope; Svensk Diplomatarium II)

Frederick Barbarossa's peace ordinance in 1152 forbade peasants from carrying lances and swords. (Freedman: Images of the Medieval Peasant)

Just a few examples. Obviously, the laws could vary from place to place, and time to time. There would have been a greater need for the keeping of weaponry in war-torn areas, and many landholders during the area were required to submit themselves (and potentially others, like sergeants, men-at-arms, and archers) for war if necessary. They, obviously, would need to keep and maintain weaponry for this purpose."

There is a very good discussion there as well, you would probably be interested in perusing it, as there are several other posts that pertain to your questions.

From http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15jre7/how_were_weapon_control_laws_implemented/ u/MarshRabbit states:

"A hand gun & cross bow statute was enacted in England in 1533. Beretta had just started making their guns in Italy in 1526, and England was already regulating hand guns. "An Act for shooting in Cross Bows and Hand Guns Whosoever shall shoot in any Hand Gun or Cros Bow or keep any in his House except he has Land Annuities or Offices to the yearly Value of an Hundred Pounds shall forfeit Ten Pounds for every Offence and a Justice of the Peace may commit the Offender to Gaol until he hath paid the same Forfeiture All former Placards made to shoot in either of them shall be void" The law exempted anyone who was worth one hundred pounds. I checked what that translates to in today's money. "Current data is only available till 2010. In 2010, £100 from 1533 is worth £558,000.00 using average earnings" 558,000 Pounds is currently worth $872,857. Clearly they wanted to keep hand guns out of reach for all but the upper class. This law was passed during the reign of King Henry VIII. The 10 Pound fine was pretty substanial too. "A simple purchasing power calculator would say the relative value of £10 from 1533 is £4,740.00 ($7,414.59) in today's money""

And u/HenkieVV states: ">It varies wildly per location, time and context, but the right to carry swords was at times curtailed for large groups of people.

In 1440, King Louis XI of France had the first ever official list published of Noble priviliges, which mentions the right to carry swords. Most, or even all, of these priviliges would've been well-established before then, simply never listed before. But the clear implication is that A) for everybody else, the right to carry swords was not guaranteed, and B) attempts to restrict this right were serious enough to warrant it being mentioned on this list.

By and large, these attempts to restrict people from carrying swords would've been in cities trying to prevent lethal brawling, but they also served as a handy way for the nobility (who were generally exempt) to protect their privilege and display their status."

Please note that this is my first time posting here, I think I've followed all the rules, but just be aware there is a very large FAQ section in the r/AskHistorians wiki that is beneficial to check out before posting.