No. This is the idea put forward in Noel Perrin, Giving Up the Gun: Japan's Reversion to the Sword, 1543-1879. But it's wrong. As the translator who did the Japanese language version of the book wrote, "This book does not take as its goal the empirical examination of the events of the past." Or, another Japanese comment: "This view is completely wrong" (both quoted in Kenneth Chase, Firearms: A Global History to 1700, who briefly discusses and dismisses Perrin's "argument").

Essentially, the matchlock musket became the most important weapon in Japanese warfare in the late 16th century, and then saw little military use in Japan. The lack of use of the musket was not because the Japanese stopped having muskets, but because Japan had been unified, and the previous unceasing wars to unite the country stopped. The Tokugawa government knew very well the importance of guns, and worked to regulate the ownership of guns. Guns were not banned in general, and hunters and farmers had legal access to guns, and were allowed to own guns. The government continued to own and produce guns for its armies.