GOVERNMENT ‘RECOMMENDED CHANGES’ TO FIREARMS LICENSING FEBRUARY 2025

Nick Doherty, barrister and firearms licensing expert, analyses the UK government’s proposed changes to firearms licensing following its February 2025 recommendations.

IMAGE: SHUTTERSTOCK - SEAN AIDAN CALDERBANK

On 14th February, 2025, the current Labour Government published its recommendations following the consultation exercise which had been carried out by the previous Conservative administration concluding on 23rd August 2023. The consultation focused on recommendations made by the Coroner following the shootings in Keyham in August 2021, and those made by a Scottish Affairs Select Committee regarding a shooting on the Isle of Skye in August 2022.

The resultant recommendations cover a number of issues which will probably have little effect on the gun trade, or shooting generally: two referees also for shotgun certificates; certificates will remain valid for 5 years; mandatory training for FEOs, which should in time improve consistency and service to the shooting public. In particular, it should improve detection of the small minority who pose a danger amongst the large majority who do not. Medical evidence is discussed in detail, but no significant changes are proposed. There is going to be a review of the ‘prohibition’ provisions in Section 21 of the Act, which is unlikely to affect the law abiding shooting community.

I recommend reading the whole document. In this article I want to consider two recommendations which are likely to have a more significant effect on the trade and certificate holders.

1 CONTROL OF SHOTGUNS

This will be the subject of another consultation later this year. “The government takes the view that shotguns are no less lethal than other firearms that are controlled under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968, and that it is right to look again at the differences in the controls and whether it is sensible …. to consider greater alignment of the controls”.

Therefore, no specific proposals as yet, but a clear intention being signalled that shotguns may become subject to Section 1 controls. This would be a ‘sea change’ for the trade and the way shooters can currently buy and sell shotguns. This raises one of the most fundamental questions within firearms licensing: Do you need to control the guns at all, or do you simply need to control the owner? The shotgun certificate regime has worked well since 1989.

The ’suitability’ test for both types of certificate holder has been the same for the past 25 years. Until Keyham, most firearms tragedies in the UK were with Section 1 firearms. Most importantly, in all cases of such shootings, it was a failure to properly assess the suitability of the certificate holder that led to loss of life. If such a change to licensing shotguns is justified, evidence should be provided to demonstrate the need.

If shotguns go to Section 1 control this would fundamentally change the ‘good reason’ requirements. Section 28 of the 1968 Act currently provides that a Chief Officer can only refuse a SGC if he is satisfied an applicant does not have good reason, and 28(1)(b) adds “… an application shall not be refused by virtue of that paragraph merely because the applicant intends neither to use the gun himself nor to lend it for anyone else to use”. This was intended to preserve the right of descendants to retain family heirlooms, even if they did not use them. Will that be continued?

2 POWER OF IMMEDIATE SEIZURE OF FIREARMS

The government have concluded that “there is a potential public safety gap in that the police do not have a backstop power to enter premises to seize firearms where there are grounds for re-assessing a certificate holder’s suitability, but the certificate holder is uncooperative with the police. The delay that is caused by the need to obtain a warrant could prove fatal.” I am not aware of a single incident where there has been a fatality in the short period (an hour in urgent cases?) in which a warrant could have been obtained.

In my view this will simply legitimise the current widespread practice of ‘insisting’ on a voluntary surrender, thereby excluding any right of appeal because there has not yet been a revocation. The danger in this proposal was recognised by some respondents to the consultation: “Others agreed that a power to seize firearms without a warrant was a good idea in the interests of public safety, but only if there were guaranteed arrangements in place to allow the certificate holder to retrieve their firearms without delay where this turned out to be safe and appropriate”. As currently proposed, there is no protection from malicious allegations, and no ability to have them tested in court within a reasonable time.

19.3 percent of respondents to the consultation agree with the idea of immediate seizure of firearms, 80.7 percent said no, so the Government intend to implement it. The shooting community have every sympathy with those who have been victims of gun related crime. It is notable however that despite representing only 0.04 percent of respondents to the consultation, considerable weight is given to their views in the Government’s proposals.

These proposals, particularly moving shotguns into Section 1 controls, will have a considerable adverse effect on the gun trade. They are unnecessary as there is no measurable public safety benefit.

We’d love to hear your thoughts on this topic. Email your views to editorial@twsgroup.com.