✕
Install on your iOS device:
Tap then "Add to Home Screen"

  • SUPPORTING RESPONSIBLE SHOOTING | Call us today:  07586 194458

Featured
  • Vicky Downs
  • No Comments

Behind the Numbers 3
Behind the Numbers 3 2560 1708 Vicky Downs

Introduction

Firearms licensing performance doesn’t grab your attention but it quietly shapes the stability of the entire shooting sector. When forces fall behind, clubs feel the pressure, certificate holders lose confidence and organisations end up spending more time dealing with licensing problems than developing the sport.

It isn’t glamorous, but it matters and it matters more now than ever.

For years, the data behind firearms licensing has been difficult to access, inconsistently presented and in some cases fundamentally flawed. We’ve challenged the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) on these issues before, particularly around the way forces report timeliness but little has changed. The published figures still allow forces to appear more efficient than they really are – for example by delaying the point at which applications are entered onto NFLMS or by marking certificates as granted before they are actually issued. These practices distort the picture and make it harder for the shooting community to understand what is really happening.

And yet, despite these flaws, this is the first time that this level of information has been made publicly available. That alone is a step in the right direction. Transparency in firearms licensing has never been more important and even imperfect data can reveal meaningful patterns when analysed properly.

This article looks beyond the headline SLA figures and focuses instead on the measures that genuinely reflect operational performance: true productivity, revocation and refusal activity, and temporary permit usage. When viewed over time, these indicators show a system that is becoming increasingly uneven with some forces performing exceptionally well and others struggling with delays, backlogs and inconsistent decision‑making.

Understanding these trends isn’t just an administrative exercise. It’s about fairness, confidence and the long‑term health of shooting in the UK.

And that’s why it’s worth paying attention.

If you’re hungry for more detail check out:

Behind the Numbers 1 and 2 via these links –

Behind the Numbers

Behind the Numbers 2

At a Glance

In the last 18 months:

Certificate Holders – We started with 506,343 and at last count now have 476,079. That’s a loss of 30,264.

Temporary Permits – We started with 1,501 and at last count now have 3,092. That’s double and shows the strain the system is under.

Across Q4 25/26:

  • The same forces repeatedly appear in the top group across productivity and low permit usage (Cheshire, Lincolnshire, Cumbria, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire).
  • The same forces repeatedly appear in the bottom group (Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, Humberside, Surrey, Sussex, West Yorkshire).
  • Forces who show high usage of their refusal and revocation powers (Devon & Cornwall, West Mercia, South Yorkshire) remain consistently high.
  • Temporary permit usage is the clearest indicator of stress and the Q4 data reinforces that pattern.

What all the numbers tell us is that UK firearms licensing is not a single system; it’s a patchwork of very different local realities. Some forces are delivering consistent, high‑quality work, while others are struggling with delays, backlogs, and heavy reliance on temporary permits.

True productivity varies dramatically and the published service level agreement (SLA) figures often mask deeper workflow problems.

Revocations and refusals remain low nationally, but intervention rates differ sharply between forces, reflecting local policy rather than national direction.

Overall, the system is stable in parts, fragile in others and increasingly defined by where you live rather than by national standards.

Q4 2025/26 – Where does your Force rank?

The following image is not perfect but it is designed to enable the average interested shooter to look at their Force and see what their performance is like in comparison to others.

Each Force is ranked from 1 to 43.

For revocation and refusal.

Ranking 1 is the area you are least likely to be refused / revoked.

Ranking 43 is the area where you are most likely to be refused / revoked.

Rank 43 is owned by South Yorkshire where you are almost 18 times more likely to be refused or revoked than if you lived in Staffordshire.

High rates do not necessarily indicate poor practice but it should ask the question – Is the shooting community of South Yorkshire really that different to the shooting community of Staffordshire?

For productivity

Ranking 1 is the Force that completes the most applications per year (Relative to their total number of certificate holders)

Ranking 43 is the Force that completes the least.

As a Force South Wales is almost twice as efficient as Durham.

References:

To see the data in full please visit –

https://www.npcc.police.uk/publications/All-publications/

and look in “Operations Coordination Committee”

Temporary Permits – Change Over Time

Transparency is not a luxury. It’s a duty.
  • Vicky Downs
  • No Comments

Sec 1 Shotguns West Mercia
Sec 1 Shotguns West Mercia 2560 1859 Vicky Downs

Introduction

Across England and Wales, Section 1 shotguns are a normal, lawful part of shooting, pest control, gamekeeping and practical disciplines. They are authorised routinely by most police forces where the applicant demonstrates good reason and meets the expected security standards.

However, in recent months a number of certificate holders and applicants in West Mercia have reported difficulties obtaining authorisation for Section 1 shotguns.

Some have been told that:

  • Section 1 shotguns are “not normally authorised”,
  • A Section 2 shotgun is “sufficient”, or
  • An applicant must demonstrate an “exceptional need”.

These positions do not reflect the Firearms Act, the Home Office Guide, or the Statutory Guidance to Chief Officers. West Mercia have now confirmed that they will review any decisions where applicants feel aggrieved, and this article explains how to do that effectively.

Email Template

To support applicants, FirearmsLicensing.net has produced:

  • A Template Review Letter that anyone can use when asking West Mercia to reconsider a decision
  • A Position Statement setting out the correct legal and guidance framework

The template is free for anyone to use but the position statement is for our membership only and accessible with any of our membership offers which start at £12 for a whole year’s access and benefits.

Why this matters?

Section 1 shotguns are a normal part of lawful shooting and land management.

The licensing system must remain:

  • Fair
  • Transparent
  • Evidence‑based
  • Consistent with national guidance

Where applicants encounter decisions that appear to apply a higher threshold than the law requires, it is entirely appropriate to request a review.

Our aim is simple:  

To support responsible certificate holders in navigating the system confidently, lawfully and with the correct information.

West Mercia’s Email address is – firearmslicensing.cjsd.hq@westmercia.pnn.police.uk

Or you can use the online form found here –

https://www.westmercia.police.uk/ar/applyregister/fao/adf/v1/contact-fal/general-enquiry/?tid=408566&lid=&cid=&rid=5&stepid=1

Template Email

Template Letter – Request for Review of Section 1 Shotgun Decision

(For public use – suitable for any applicant in West Mercia)

[Your Name]

[Your Address]

[Certificate Number – if applicable]

[Date]

Firearms Licensing Unit

West Mercia Police

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Request for Review of Decision Relating to Section 1 Shotgun

I am writing to request a review of the recent decision concerning my application/renewal/variation* for a Section 1 shotgun. I understand that West Mercia Police have invited applicants who feel aggrieved by such decisions to seek a review, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.

I remain fully cooperative and willing to provide any further reasonable information required.

1. Basis for requesting a review

I am concerned that the decision may not fully reflect the statutory framework set out in:

  • The Firearms Act 1968,
  •  The Home Office Guide on Firearms Licensing Law, and
  • The Statutory Guidance to Chief Officers.

These documents make clear that:

  • The legal test for authorising a Section 1 shotgun is good reason,
  • Blanket policies are not permitted, and
  • All decisions must be made on a case‑by‑case basis, considering the specific firearm, purpose and circumstances.

I respectfully request that my application be reconsidered in light of these principles.

2. My stated good reason

My application sets out a clear, evidenced and continuing good reason for the Section 1 shotgun, namely;

[Insert your intended use here and why this is supported by a Sec 1 shotgun – e.g., pest control requiring rapid follow‑up shots,]

This is a recognised, lawful purpose and is consistent with national practice across England and Wales.

3. Security arrangements

My security arrangements meet or exceed the standards set out in the Home Office Guide and Statutory Guidance.

4. Crime and risk considerations

National crime data shows no evidence that legally‑held Section 1 shotguns are used in crime with any measurable frequency. Shotgun offences overwhelmingly involve illicit or shortened shotguns, not firearms held on certificate.

Crime data provides no evidence base for treating Section 1 shotguns as requiring a higher threshold of justification.

5. Right of appeal

If, following review, the decision is maintained, I would be grateful for:

  • A clear written explanation of the reasons for refusal, and
  • Confirmation of my statutory right of appeal under the Firearms Act 1968.

This ensures transparency and allows me to consider my next steps appropriately.

Closing

I appreciate your time and consideration. My intention is simply to comply with the law, meet the statutory tests, and continue my shooting activities safely and responsibly. I remain fully willing to provide any further information required.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

Sorry you do not have access to this content - register or upgrade.
  • Chris Downs
  • No Comments

Storage Costs
Storage Costs 2560 1707 Chris Downs

Introduction:

Temporary Permits should protect certificate holders, not excuse police delays. If you applied in good time, you shouldn’t face unlawful possession or storage costs. This guide explains your rights and how to challenge unfair refusals.

In Brief
Temporary Permits were designed to bridge short gaps, not to excuse systemic delays. Yet many certificate holders find themselves in limbo: unable to renew, unable to purchase, and expected to pay for secure storage simply because their force has not processed their application in time.

This guide explains:

  • When a Temporary Permit should be issued
  • What the law and Statutory Guidance require
  • Whether the police should pay for storage
  • Two template letters: a Notice of Intention to Claim and a Formal Claim
  • A full list of UK police force legal‑services email addresses

The Legal Framework — What Should Happen

The 8‑Week Extension
If you submit your renewal at least eight weeks before expiry, Section 28B of the Firearms Act 1968 automatically grants an eight‑week extension to your certificate. The guidance makes clear that this extension is intended as a safety net for exceptional circumstances where the police are unable to process and decide a case before the original expiry date. It is not intended to be used routinely.

This sixteen‑week window (eight weeks before expiry plus the eight‑week extension) is the basis for the expectation that renewals should normally be completed within four months.

Temporary Permits — What They Are and When They Should Be Issued
The Law
Section 7(1) of the Firearms Act 1968 allows a Temporary Permit enabling continued lawful possession of firearms and ammunition.

The Guidance
The guidance states that a permit should be issued if a certificate holder’s firearm certificate or shotgun certificate has expired and they have made reasonable efforts to renew in good time. This is not optional language. If you applied in good time, the default expectation is that a Temporary Permit should be issued.

What a Temporary Permit Allows

  • Continued lawful possession of the firearms and ammunition already held
  • Purchase of Section 2 shotgun ammunition

A Temporary Permit does not allow:

  • Purchase of firearms
  • Purchase of Section 1 ammunition

Why Some Forces Stopped Issuing Permits – And Why That’s Not Your Problem

In late 2023, around 5,000 Temporary Permits were in circulation. Some forces used them as a way to manage backlogs. Statutory Guidance criticised this practice and numbers dropped sharply. Some forces then incorrectly told certificate holders that they had been forbidden from issuing Temporary Permits. This is untrue. The guidance says forces should avoid routine use, not stop issuing them altogether.

Should the Police Pay for Storage? A Step‑by‑Step Analysis

Step 1 — Did you apply at least eight weeks before expiry?
If yes, you triggered the statutory extension.

Step 2 — Who caused the delay?
Your case is strongest when:

  • You applied in good time
  • You cooperated fully
  • The delay is due to police backlogs or internal processes

Step 3 — What does Statutory Guidance require?
If the police cannot decide within the extension period, the guidance states that they must either work with the applicant to make arrangements for safe, legal storage, or consider issuing a Temporary Permit.

Step 4 — When is the argument for police‑funded storage strongest?
When all of the following apply:

  • You applied at least eight weeks before expiry
  • The delay is police‑caused
  • No Temporary Permit has been issued
  • You are being told to pay for storage solely because the force has not processed your renewal

Step 5 — When is the argument weaker?

  • You applied late
  • You failed to provide required information
  • You ignored reminders
  • Even then, fairness arguments remain if delays were caused by GP reports or other third‑party issues.

Template Letters

Template 1 — Notice of Intention to Claim (Pre‑Claim Notification)

Send this to your firearms licensing team while they are still processing your application. It let’s them know that you intend to claim.

Subject: Renewal Delay – Notice of Intention to Claim Storage Costs and Request for Temporary Permit
Certificate Number: [Insert]

Dear [Licensing Manager / Firearms Licensing Team],

I am writing regarding the renewal of my [firearm/shotgun/both] certificate, which expires/expired on [date]. I submitted my renewal on [date], which was [number] weeks before expiry.

Statutory Extension
Under Section 28B of the Firearms Act 1968, my timely application triggered the automatic eight‑week extension, extending my certificate to [date].

Delay Not Attributable to Me
I have complied fully with all requirements. It appears the delay is due to internal processing issues within the force.

Temporary Permit
Guidance states that a permit should be issued if a certificate holder has made reasonable efforts to renew in good time. As I applied in good time, I request that a Temporary Permit be issued immediately.

Notice of Intention to Claim Storage Costs
If no permit is issued, I will be required to place my firearms/shotguns into storage with [RFD/club] from [date] at a cost of £[amount] per [week/month]. I intend to seek reimbursement of these costs if they arise.

Request
I request:

  • Immediate issue of a Temporary Permit; or
  • Confirmation that the force will meet reasonable storage costs until the renewal is completed.

Please respond within 14 days.

Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Address]
[Contact details]

Template 2 — Formal Claim for Reimbursement of Storage Costs

Send this once your application is resolved to the email addresses below for your Force.

Subject: Formal Claim for Reimbursement of Storage Costs Arising from Renewal Delay
Certificate Number: [Insert]

Dear [Licensing Manager / Firearms Licensing Team],

I am writing to submit a formal claim for reimbursement of storage costs incurred as a direct result of delays in processing my certificate renewal.

Background

  • Renewal submitted: [date]
  • Weeks before expiry: [number]
  • Statutory extension end date: [date]
  • Date firearms/shotguns placed into storage: [date]
  • Storage provider: [RFD/club name
  • Cost: £[amount] per [week/month]

Delay Not Attributable to Me
I complied fully with all requirements. The delay was caused by internal force processes.
Temporary Permit
Guidance states that a permit should be issued if a certificate holder has made reasonable efforts to renew in good time. Despite this, no Temporary Permit was issued.
Statutory Guidance
Where police cannot decide within the extension period, they must either work with the applicant to arrange safe, legal storage or consider issuing a Temporary Permit. This did not occur.
Financial Loss
I have incurred storage costs totalling £[amount] for the period [date] to [date]. Receipts and invoices are attached.
Claim
I request reimbursement of £[amount], representing the reasonable and necessary costs incurred solely because the force did not complete the renewal or issue a Temporary Permit.

Please confirm reimbursement within 14 days, or provide written reasons with reference to the relevant statutory provisions and guidance.

Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Address]
[Contact details]

UK Police Force Legal‑Services Email Directory

Please note every effort is made to ensure these are correct but we can not always keep up with changes. If you find one that doesn’t work please let us know.

Avon and Somerset Constabulary – legalservices@avonandsomerset.police.uk
Bedfordshire Police – customersupport@beds.police.uk
Cambridgeshire Constabulary – legaladvice@cambs.police.uk
Cheshire Constabulary – legal.services@cheshire.police.uk
City of London Police – ccs.contact@cityoflondon.gov.uk
Cleveland Police – legal.services@cleveland.police.uk
Cumbria Constabulary – HQLegalServices@cumbria.police.uk
Derbyshire Constabulary – legal@derbyshire.police.uk
Devon and Cornwall Police – legalservices@devonandcornwall.pnn.police.uk
Dorset Police – legalservices@devonandcornwall.pnn.police.uk
Durham Constabulary – legal@durham.police.uk
Dyfed‑Powys Police – LegalServices@dyfed-powys.police.uk
Essex Police – essex.legal.services@essex.police.uk
Gloucestershire Constabulary – legal.services@gloucestershire.police.uk
Greater Manchester Police – CivilLitigation.Unit@gmp.police.uk
Gwent Police – jointlegalservices@south-wales.police.uk
Hampshire Constabulary – civil.litigation@hampshire.police.uk
Hertfordshire Constabulary – legalservices@herts.police.uk
Humberside Police – legalenquiries@southyorkshire.police.uk
Kent Police – legal.services@kent.pnn.police.uk
Lancashire Constabulary – civildisclosures@lancashire.police.uk
Leicestershire Police – legal@derbyshire.police.uk
Lincolnshire Police – legal@derbyshire.police.uk
Merseyside Police – civil.litigation@merseyside.police.uk
Metropolitan Police Service – DLSMailbox-Allocations@met.police.uk
Norfolk Constabulary – legalservices@norfolk.police.uk
Northamptonshire Police – legal@derbyshire.police.uk
Northumbria Police – civil.claims@northumbria.police.uk
North Wales Police – karen.kinsey@nthwales.pnn.police.uk
North Yorkshire Police – legal.servicescentral@northyorkshire.police.uk
Nottinghamshire Police – legal@derbyshire.police.uk
South Wales Police – jointlegalservices@south-wales.police.uk
South Yorkshire Police – LegalEnquiries@southyorks.pnn.police.uk
Staffordshire Police – LS_joint_services@westmidlands.police.uk
Suffolk Constabulary – insurancesection@suffolk.police.uk
Surrey Police – Surreyandsussexclaims@sussex.pnn.police.uk
Sussex Police – civilclaims@sussex.police.uk
Thames Valley Police – legal.enquiries@thamesvalley.police.uk
Warwickshire Police – legal@warwickshire.police.uk
West Mercia Police – legal.hq@westmercia.police.uk
West Midlands Police – ls_joint_services@westmidlands.police.uk
West Yorkshire Police – legal.services@westyorkshire.police.uk
Wiltshire Police – legalservices@wiltshire.police.uk

Final Thoughts

Temporary Permits were never meant to be a substitute for proper resourcing. When delays push certificate holders towards unlawful possession, fairness should not be the first casualty. If you applied in good time, cooperated fully, and the delay is police‑caused, you have a strong basis to argue that a Temporary Permit should be issued and that you should not be forced to pay for storage caused by administrative failure.
  • Vicky Downs
  • No Comments

Paul Quinton
Paul Quinton 1536 1024 Vicky Downs

Paul Quinton joins FirearmsLicensing.Net as a Consultant and Subject Matter Expert, bringing with him more than 21 years of frontline firearms licensing experience with Essex Police, alongside a distinguished earlier military career.

A nationally recognised authority in firearms licensing, Paul is widely respected for his strategic insight, operational leadership, and unwavering commitment to public safety, lawful shooting, and countryside advocacy.

Paul’s Career

Paul spent over two decades with Essex Police’s Firearms, Shotgun & Explosives Licensing Department, beginning his career as a Firearms Enquiry Officer and progressing to Deputy Firearms Licensing Manager. During this time, he led on complex and high‑risk suitability assessments, provided specialist internal technical advice, supported the implementation of new legislation, and engaged extensively with national stakeholders and partner agencies.

His leadership was instrumental in transforming Essex Police’s firearms licensing function, overseeing improvements that saw the force rise from the bottom to the top tier of national firearms licensing performance. Paul also played a key role in reinstating and strengthening advisory forums, improving constructive engagement with Registered Firearms Dealers (RFDs), shooting clubs, and representative bodies, and fostering a more transparent, collaborative approach to licensing.

Prior to joining Essex Police, Paul served in the British Army from 1981 to 2004, including operational roles as a Coldstream Guards sniper and later as Warrant Officer Class 1 Staff Assistant (Custodial) for the Provost Marshal. His military service included responsibility for high‑level inspections, tri‑service custodial oversight, complex logistics, and contributions to the rewrite of key custodial policy publications.

A decorated marksman, Paul represented the British Army internationally and earned selection for the elite Army 100.

Interests

A lifelong ambassador for lawful shooting and countryside conservation, Paul remains actively involved in shooting syndicates, deer management, and clay sports. He is a CPSA Safety Officer and is passionate about education, proportional regulation, and the promotion of responsible firearms ownership and access.

In his role with Firearms Licensing.net, Paul brings unrivalled practical experience from inside a major police firearms licensing unit. As a consultant and SME, he is committed to supporting forces, organisations, and individuals with pragmatic, evidence‑based advice, helping to raise standards, improve consistency, and strengthen trust across the firearms licensing landscape.
  • Vicky Downs
  • No Comments

Dunblane – 30 Years
Dunblane – 30 Years 1707 2560 Vicky Downs

Introduction

On 13th March 1996 the nation suffered profound shock and loss as the actions of a single individual robbed so many of their lives and loved ones.

Any discussion of Dunblane must begin with respect for that grief. But remembering Dunblane also means remembering it truthfully. And truth, in this case, is uncomfortable.

This is a highly emotive subject no matter what side of the debate you fall on but the 30-year anniversary must call for some considered reflection. In the space available I will not do justice to all the issues but there is one theme that remains particularly relevant today.

Narrative

A narrative that followed the tragedy was simple: the law was inadequate.

Yet the evidence presented to the subsequent Cullen Inquiry shows something entirely different. By 1996, the police already had the powers to refuse or revoke a firearm certificate if a person was not fit to be entrusted with a gun or if public safety was at risk.

They had the discretion to impose conditions, restrict access, and intervene early. These powers were not theoretical but rather they were well‑established and routinely used elsewhere.

Missed Opportunities

What Police also had was information. Complaints about the individual’s behaviour around boys’ clubs. Concerns raised by members of the public. Internal unease among officers. A pattern of conduct that, taken together, should have triggered review. The Cullen Report documents these warnings in detail.

One of the most striking pieces of evidence came five years before the shooting. In November 1991, Detective Sergeant Paul Hughes submitted a written recommendation access to firearms be removed. His assessment was stark:

 “He is a scheming, devious and deceitful individual who is not to be trusted… He has an extremely unhealthy interest in young boys.”

This was not rumour. It was a formal, internal warning from a child‑protection specialist. Yet the certificate was renewed. The tragedy is not that the police lacked the tools. It is that they did not use them.

That distinction matters. It matters because when institutions misdiagnose the cause of a failure, they repeat it.

A Consistent Message

I see this pattern often in my work. People sometimes assume that because I spent years in policing, I will instinctively defend the institution.

But in July 2024, I delivered a presentation to a room including police licensing managers, shooting organisations,  and opposition groups. In this I used Dunblane and other tragedies as examples of what happens when a licensing system has the powers, has the information, and still fails to act. The silence in the room wasn’t discomfort. It was recognition.

Everyone there understood that the most dangerous failures in licensing are rarely legislative. They are operational: poor information handling, inadequate resourcing and a lack of focus on the core work.

As Relevant Now

That brings us to today’s debate about aligning Section 1 and Section 2. On the surface, it is presented as an enhancement to public safety. But beneath that sits a familiar instinct: when the system struggles, change the law.

For the shooting community, misdiagnosis doesn’t just distort public debate – it shapes the regulatory pressures they live with for years afterwards.

The lesson of Dunblane is not that Britain needed different laws. It is that the police needed (and still need) the confidence, competence, and support to use the laws they already have.

Reform

As we mark another anniversary, we honour the victims by remembering the truth, not the myth. Dunblane was preventable under the law as it existed. The tragedy was not legislative failure. It was institutional inaction. And if we forget that, we risk repeating it.

That is why, if we want a safer, more resilient licensing system, we must insist on accuracy – in memory, in diagnosis, and in reform.

 

 
  • Vicky Downs
  • No Comments

Rejected, Closed, Cancelled
Rejected, Closed, Cancelled 2560 1707 Vicky Downs

Most shooters assume that if their firearms application doesn’t proceed, it’s because the police have formally refused it. In reality, thousands of applications every year never reach that stage at all. They are quietly “cancelled”, “rejected”, or “closed” long before any lawful decision is made and because cancellations are not a statutory outcome, they are not reported to the Home Office, not included in national statistics, and not monitored by any oversight body.

The result is a hidden postcode lottery where some forces cancel hundreds of applications a year, others cancel almost none, and applicants are left with no appeal rights, no scrutiny, and no explanation.

Sorry you do not have access to this content - register or upgrade.
  • Chris Downs
  • No Comments

Knife Licences?
Knife Licences? 2560 1800 Chris Downs

Author’s Note:

I originally wrote this piece for Gun Trade Insider magazine, but the implications of the Home Office’s knife‑sales licensing proposals are too significant not to share more widely. Our new Trade section is designed to give RFDs – and anyone operating in the wider outdoor, sporting, and specialist retail space – clear, practical insight into regulatory changes that directly affect day‑to‑day business.

This article sets out the key issues the sector needs to understand, the operational risks that have been overlooked, and why a strong, informed response from the trade is essential.

Introduction:

Knife crime remains one of the most significant threats to public safety in the UK. After nearly three decades dealing with the consequences of this on the streets of London, I have no doubt about the scale of harm it causes. The Government’s ambition to halve knife crime over the next decade is something every one of us should support.

However, the recently announced Home Office consultation on licensing knife sellers raises serious concerns. The proposals concern the introduction of a new licensing regime covering the sale and importation of knives – affecting retailers, private individuals, online sellers, second hand markets, and anyone importing bladed items for personal use. This is one of the most far reaching regulatory expansions in recent years.

It is essential that the trade responds, not least because:

  • Many RFDS also trade in outdoor equipment, sporting goods and knives. Any new regulatory burden will directly affect them.
  • The consultation repeatedly references firearms licensing and proposes that police take the primary role in administering and enforcing this new scheme. Firearms licensing teams are already under severe strain; adding a vastly larger licensing population risks further degrading service to the shooting community.
  • Significant legislation already exists to prevent underage knife sales, and police and Trading Standards already have the powers to enforce it.

Please note, in writing this article I have consulted with a variety of partners including the British Shooting Sports Council.

Key Issues and Concerns

1. Unrealistic Expectations on Policing

The independent review by Commander Stephen Clayman states:

Lessons learned from firearms licensing shows that the regulation of the weapons markets reduces the availability and use of weapons in incidents, but it comes at significant cost to law enforcement.

Firearms licensing and knife sales are not directly comparable. Even if they were, forces already struggle to meet statutory firearms licensing obligations. Adding a licensing population potentially larger than the entire firearms community is operationally unachievable and would inevitably divert resources from their core functions.

2. Vague and Subjective Suitability Criteria

The consultation refers to “intelligence”, “dishonesty”, and “concerns” as grounds for refusing or revoking a licence but provides no definitions. This mirrors the inconsistent decision making and postcode lottery already seen in firearms licensing. Without a single clear primary agency in place and statutory criteria, the risk of arbitrary or uneven enforcement is high.

3. Import Licensing Is Unworkable at Scale

Border Force cannot realistically police millions of parcels containing kitchen knives, craft knives, or tools. The proposals offer no credible enforcement model for imports, and risk creating a system that is burdensome for legitimate users while having little impact on illicit supply.

4. Weak Evidence Base

The consultation cites knife crime statistics but provides no evidence that licensing sellers or importers reduces harm.

The Clayman review is explicit:

  • There is no standardised national data from police or hospitals capturing the types of knives used in crime.
  • That data does not exist to support targeted regulation of knife types.
  • The only available dataset of this kind relates to homicides (ONS 2024), which shows that 53% of fatal offences involve a kitchen knife.

This means the majority of weapons used in the most serious incidents are already present in the home. Regulating the sale of outdoor knives, tools, or specialist equipment will not meaningfully address the highest risk category.

There is also no analysis of:

  • whether offenders would simply shift to unregulated channels
  • whether the proposals would push legitimate trade underground
  • whether enforcement would divert police resources from more effective interventions

For a policy with such wide regulatory reach, this is a major omission.

Your Voice Matters

This consultation will shape the future regulatory landscape for knives and may set precedents for other licensing regimes. It is vital that practitioners, businesses, and individuals with operational experience respond.

We encourage all trade members to:

  • Read the consultation in full
  • Consider how the proposals would affect your business or activities
  • Submit a response highlighting practical, evidence based concerns

Key opportunities to respond include:

  • Questions 4 & 5 -whether businesses or private individuals should be licensed
  • Question 8 -describing the operational impact on your business
  • Question 9 – making any other comments.

Please note, both questions 8 and 9 have 250 word limits. It is therefore important to use this space well to highlight key issues or use the email address below to add further information.
If you would like support drafting your response, or wish to contribute to a coordinated sector submission, please get in touch at info@firearmslicensing.net.

To respond, search “Home Office knife sales consultation” or visit:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/licensing-for-knife-sales/licensing-for-knife-sales-accessible

You can complete the online form or email:

KnifeLicensingConsultation@homeoffice.gov.uk
  • Chris Downs
  • No Comments

MPs work for you
MPs work for you 2560 1707 Chris Downs

23 February Debate

A parliamentary debate will take place on 23 February following the petition on merging Section 1 and Section 2 firearms licensing.

This debate will not change the law, but it will influence the Government’s direction and MPs need to hear from the people who actually use the system.

Shooting needs you to invest a little time and contact your MP.

In our experience template letters are convenient but easy to for MPs to ignore. A shorter, more personal message from you makes the real difference.

You don’t need technical detail or long explanations these are hard to digest and easy to forget.

Just be polite, factual, and speak as a constituent.

Below are four key points you may want to consider and include in your own words.

Key Points

1. Evidence and public safety

The results of the Firearms consultation 2023 demonstrates that the shooting community supports strong licensing. The post‑Keyham reviews, and repeated HMIC inspections from 1993 to present day, have all highlighted the most serious problems lie in police practices (suitability assessment, leadership, training, and consistency between forces) rather than faults in the law itself.

The only specific reference to Law was made by the Keyham Coroner which has since been examined in detail and found to be irrelevant.

2. Police capacity and focus

Evidence is clear that public safety depends on police making a sound assessment of each individual certificate holder. This is highlighted extensively in the reports following all recent tragedies. National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) figures show police capacity is already under strain, and redesigning the licensing system would divert focus and resources away from those proven safeguards.

3. Risk profile and purpose

Shotguns have a different risk profile and purpose, and Parliament has repeatedly reviewed their position and recognised this by regulating them separately. The distinction is deliberate and long‑standing, not an oversight.

4. Rural and economic impact

Shooting underpins farming, conservation, and rural jobs, and any major change to the licensing system would have real impacts on the countryside economy. Reform needs to support public safety without undermining the communities who rely on it.

But remember – your own experience is what matters most.

How to contact your MP

Step 1: Find your MP

Step 2: Include your full name and full postal address

  • MPs can only respond to people who live in their constituency.
  • If you don’t include your full address, your message will not be logged or passed to the MP.

Step 3: Keep your message short and personal

  • 5–7 sentences is ideal.
  • Say you are a certificate holder and a constituent.
  • Pick from the points above (or something else) and write in your own words
  • Explain why this matters to you.

Step 4: Be polite and constructive

  • MPs respond far better to respectful, measured messages.
  • Avoid templates – your own words carry far more weight.

Step 5: Ask for one clear action

Please attend the debate on 23 February and critically examine the evidence behind alignment. As my MP, I hope you will represent the views of your constituents and ensure any future changes are based on evidence and public safety.

Further Information:

Government Response to the 2023 consultation – https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6895e391586f9c9360656a20/Consultation+response+document+12+02+2025+final__1_.pdf

The petition and initial Government response – https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/750236

Further information on the different regimes – Shotguns aren’t the problem

Watch the debate live or afterwards on the UK Parliament YouTube channel – https://www.youtube.com/UKParliament

The Final Word

The shooting community has a long record of responsible, evidence‑led engagement.

A short, personal message from you helps ensure the debate focuses on what actually improves public safety – not on changes that add complexity without benefit.

 
  • Chris Downs
  • No Comments

Criminal Records Office (ACRO)
Criminal Records Office (ACRO) 2465 2560 Chris Downs

Understanding what the police hold about you on the Police National Computer (PNC) is one of the simplest ways to approach a firearms licensing application with confidence. This article explains how a free Subject Access Request (SAR) from the Criminal Records Office (ACRO) allows applicants to view their own PNC record, check for accuracy, and address any issues before applying.

Sorry you do not have access to this content - register or upgrade.
  • Chris Downs
  • No Comments

Scroll, Post, Consequences
Scroll, Post, Consequences 2560 1440 Chris Downs

The subject of policing Social Media and the wider internet has frequently caused public concern. The mainstream press seems full of examples which seem grossly out of proportion with what people would expect to be a productive use of police time.

A recent report which has caused concern amongst the shooting community is the case of Jon Richelieu-Booth with headlines like:

 

Man arrested in the UK for posing with gun in the US

 

Reports of this case can be found through an internet search or by visiting this link to the piece in the Metro –

https://metro.co.uk/2025/12/03/man-arrested-in-the-uk-for-posing-with-gun-in-the-us-plans-to-sue-the-police-25097070/

This article takes you through the history behind Social Media checks in firearms licensing and gives some practical advice on how to ensure online activity doesn’t impact on your shooting activities.

Sorry you do not have access to this content - register or upgrade.

Back to top