GOVERNMENT GRANTS POLICE AUTOMATIC ENTRY POWERS FOR FIREARM CERTIFICATE HOLDERS

IMAGE: SHUTTERSTOCK - TONY DUNN

The UK government has announced plans to grant police automatic powers of entry into the homes of firearm certificate holders, a move that has drawn strong criticism from within the shooting community. The decision, revealed on 13 February as part of the government’s response to a 2023 firearms licensing consultation, has been described as unnecessary and an erosion of civil liberties.

The proposal allows police to enter a certificate holder’s home without a warrant in cases where their suitability is under review, but they refuse to cooperate. This measure was included despite significant opposition during the consultation process, with 80.7 per cent of respondents rejecting the proposal.

Currently, police already have powers of entry in cases where there is an immediate risk to public safety or to prevent crime. They can also apply for a warrant from a magistrate if access is required and have the authority to revoke certificates, making the possession of firearms illegal.

Critics argue that the new measure undermines principles of fairness and due process, granting police powers beyond those necessary for ensuring public safety. Bill Harriman, director of firearms at BASC, described the move as a “deeply concerning” development.

“The government is handing the police sweeping powers to enter the homes of certificate holders when the ability to do so to protect public safety is already enshrined in law. This is potentially a serious infringement on the human rights of firearms users,” Harriman said.

He also raised concerns over the broader impact on the firearms licensing system: “At a time when the firearms licensing system is already struggling under the weight of inefficiency and inconsistency, this does nothing to improve public safety. Instead of addressing the failings in the system, this response suggests a lack of understanding of the real problems present in firearms licensing.”

While the government maintains that the move is intended to strengthen firearms licensing processes, opposition from shooting and countryside organisations suggests that the debate over balancing public safety with civil liberties is far from over.

The government’s proposal is for a power of entry where there are grounds for reviewing suitability, but the certificate holder is uncooperative with the police.

The full text from the 2023 consultation outcome paper:

(a) A power of immediate seizure of firearms, shotguns and ammunition

5.2 The police have powers to seize firearms, shotguns and ammunition where there is an immediate threat to life. The Coroner for the Keyham Inquest expressed concern that there is, however, no statutory power for the police to enter property and to seize firearms, shotguns or ammunition where there was a justification for reviewing suitability to hold a firearms certificate, but where there was no immediate threat to life. In such circumstances, the police currently rely on either voluntary surrender by the certificate holder or by seeking a warrant from a magistrate (or Sheriff in Scotland) under section 46 of the Firearms Act 1968.

5.3 The consultation asked whether, in view of the potential public safety risks, the police should be granted a specific power of entry (without a warrant issued by a magistrate or sheriff) to be able to seize shotguns, firearms and ammunition where there is a risk to public safety or the peace and the certificate holder does not cooperate with the police and agree to voluntary surrender? Of those who responded to this question, 82% of members of the shooting community, 83% of members of the farming/rural community and 80% of those who did not self-report as belonging to any of these groups responded ‘no’ to this question. The response was very different for other groups; 45% of GPs/health care professionals, 26% of those in law enforcement and 25% of those who described themselves as victims/friends/family/community of victims of gun crime.

5.4 A number of respondents provided written comments relating to this question. Many considered that the requirement to obtain a warrant represented an important safeguard, noting that the police already have sufficient powers of entry, and powers to seize firearms, where there is a risk to life, public safety or the peace, and the power to revoke the firearms certificate. Some respondents considered that this might increase the number of unnecessary seizures, with the police being ‘over cautious’ and seizing firearms on a ‘just in case’ basis, without proper and sufficient evidence of an actual risk. If there is a concern here that the requirement to obtain a warrant creates an unacceptable delay where there are genuine public safety concerns, some respondents suggested the alternative of allowing for accelerated arrangements to obtain a warrant in firearms cases, which would still include the important element of scrutiny by a magistrate or Sheriff in Scotland.

5.5 Other respondents, including some from a law enforcement background, considered that in some circumstances the potential time delay in having to obtain a warrant could substantially increase the risk of serious injury or death, representing a tactically challenging situation for the police. We were told that practice was not consistent between police forces, with some more likely to seize weapons in the face of a potential risk, while others were less inclined to do so. It was therefore suggested to us that creating a clear power would provide greater certainty. 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.

5.6 The government’s attention was also drawn to the potential impact on other members of a household who might be present and could be affected if the police were to be given additional powers of entry. We were told about the importance of ensuring that any such operations are appropriately planned and coordinated so that they do not inadvertently create additional risks to members of the household, for example those who might be at risk of domestic abuse.

5.7 Having weighed up the evidence, and having considered the responses to this consultation, the government’s view is 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. While it is to be hoped that a certificate holder will usually cooperate with the police, a new backstop power will provide certainty that the police can act decisively should circumstances so require. The government therefore intends to legislate to provide the police with a new power of entry when a suitable legislative opportunity arises.