Perhaps the main issue wouldn't be the rejection of firearms, but rather the adoption of crossbows.
Between the fall of the Roman Empire in the West and the adoption of firearms in the 1400's, military power depended on highly skilled men at arms (called Knights in the West, but also exemplified by Samurai in Japan and the Janissaries in the Ottoman Empire). These men required a lifetime of training, starting as young boys, and the time spent in training, and the expense of equipping these men tended to limit their numbers. The English/Welsh longbow was similar in may ways, only by starting training in boyhood could archers handle the 100-120 lb draw weight of full sized bows and draw and shoot fast enough to create "arrow storms".
Crossbows, and complimentary weapons like pikes and pole arms along with proper tactics allowed men with relatively little training to go into battle against Knights, Samurai and Janissaries with the expectation of winning. Polities which adopted "Infantry Revolution" weapons and tactics in the 1400's could field much larger armies than their aristocratic Knightly (etc.) counterparts, and more importantly, could make up losses far more quickly. A townsman killed in battle could be replaced in a matter of weeks by drilling a new man, a dead knight could only be replaced when a child had finished training and achieved manhood, and by furnishing them with expensive equipment.
Assuming the banning of firearms is a cultural issue, as the OP seems to suggest, then what will happen will likely replicate the situation in Japan once the Tokugawa Shogunate established itself. During the wars which raged up to that point, the Japanese were enthusiastic users of firearms and "Infantry Revolution" troops (Ashigaru) armed with pikes, arquebuses and other "modern" tools of warfare. Once the Japanese islands were consolidated, the Shogunate immediately banned the importation and manufacture of firearms, and collected firearms, swords, spears and other weapons from the population to prevent the prospect of revolts and preserve the social rank of the Samurai.
In such a situation, crossbows would actually be a terrible danger to the "Knightly" class and existing social structure. Anyone who made crossbows could issue them out to peasants, cooks and townsmen and have the ability to rapidly raise an army capable of putting lots of effective "fire" on the Knightly attackers, or use the firepower to sweep the walls of fortifications and overwhelm defenders without similar arms. (The term firepower is actually inaccurate, since it is a conceit of using firearms, but I'm not clear of the analogous term for arrows).
So if firearms are going to be banned, then crossbows will also be banned (and military geniuses who experimented with pike or pole-arm tactics will also be looked at with great suspicion). Long range attacks will be done with longbows, since the training for effective use of 120 lb draw longbows also excludes a large segment of the population from effectively participating in warfare (even in England, special laws were passed to ensure people were constantly practicing archery).
In social terms, the banning of firearms will also lead to the banning of "Infantry Revolution" weapons and a great stagnation in battlefield tactics in order to preserve the aristocratic privilege of the Knightly class. So long as the territory is insular enough to remain isolated from outside threats (like the Japanese Home Islands), the situation may endure, but once outside threats enter the picture, the polity will either need to adapt rapidly to the introduction of new technologies and tactics, or die.