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

  • SUPPORTING RESPONSIBLE SHOOTING | Call us today:  07586 194458

Free Content
  • Vicky Downs
  • No Comments

The Tower
The Tower 1536 1024 Vicky Downs

The Tower

On 3 June, we broke the news that the much‑anticipated National Firearms Licensing Management System (NFLMS or Flimsy) procurement process had moved to its next stage, with Palantir announced as the successful supplier.

This development came as a surprise not only to major shooting organisations, but to several police forces as well. That absence of communication is disappointing, though perhaps not unexpected. It undermines the principle of collaborative reform that should underpin any national transition affecting lawful shooting.

The Tower exists to document, analyse, and support the shooting community as questions and concerns inevitably arise around this potentially controversial contract award. It is a free resource for everyone in the shooting community – trade, clubs and individual certificate holders – offering clear, evidence‑based insight into what is happening and why it matters.

Our work here is funded entirely by membership, yet we believe it is too valuable to hide behind a paywall. If you value our efforts and want to help keep this resource open and accessible to all, please consider joining us. Membership packages start at £12 for the entire year and your support ensures we can continue providing the clarity and accountability our community deserves.

https://firearmslicensing.net/register/

What is NFLMS?

The National Firearms Licensing Management System (NFLMS) – often referred to as Flimsy – is the central database used by police forces across England and Wales to manage some aspects of firearms and/or shotgun licensing. It underpins the licensing process: applications, renewals, revocations and the recording of certificate holders and their firearms.

NFLMS was implemented circa 2006 and despite its critical role, the system is widely regarded as outdated, fragmented and increasingly unfit for purpose. Its limitations, combined with rising demand and scrutiny, prompted the Home Office to pursue a full replacement through a national procurement programme.

What NFLMS doesn’t do?

NFLMS is not a case‑management system. This means police forces must operate at least two systems in parallel to complete the firearms licensing process.

The result?

  • Inefficiencies
  • Duplication of effort
  • Variations in process between forces
  • Delays and inconsistencies experienced by certificate holders

A system capable of combining both the database and case‑management functions would represent a significant operational improvement for policing.

What information does it hold?

Local practices vary but this is what Statutory Guidance to Police says:

5.1 Chief officers should record the following on the relevant national firearms licensing database:

  • (i)  the nominal details of all applicants and certificate holders and the status of those certificates including firearms possessed;
  • (ii)  any information relevant to the suitability of the applicant, including intelligence and allegations or concerns raised even if not proven;
  • (iii)  the reasons for each grant/renewal decision, whether approval or refusal;
  • (iv)  details of any review of suitability, including the reasons for the review and its outcome;
  • (v)  details of any appeal, including the outcome;
  • (vi)  details of storage of firearms;
  • (vii)  dates of visits and inspections, and types of inspection (including RFD inspections);
  • (viii)  whether a medical marker has been added by the GP (if known);
  • (ix)  whether the certificate holder is an officer, former officer, or police staff or former police staff (if known);
  • (x)  the outcome of any checks relating to periods of residence abroad;
  • (xi)  details of the applicant’s GP and referees; and
  • (xii)  any other information the chief officer considers useful.

5.2 Records should not be deleted due to the applicant moving to another force area.

5.3 Records of applicants and certificate holders on the relevant national firearms licensing database should be kept up to date at all times, so that accurate information on possession of firearms is available to local police via the PNC.

5.4 For RFDs, in the event of a variation of a condition, removal from the register or surrender of a dealer’s certificate of registration, an appropriate notification should be sent to all other forces.

In short: NFLMS holds a significant volume of sensitive personal and suitability‑related data and its replacement will have major implications for both policing and the shooting community.

The Replacement Process

The procurement for the NFLMS replacement first surfaced in late 2023, when the Home Office issued early market engagement material outlining its intention to replace the ageing system. Initial documentation described a platform capable of handling national firearms licensing data, integrating with policing systems and supporting improved decision‑making. However, after this early activity, the programme appeared to stall with little visible progress through 2024.

Momentum returned in 2025, when the Home Office reinvigorated the project and issued a more formal Invitation to Tender (ITT). This specification set out a broad ambition: a modern, secure, cloud‑based platform capable of managing national firearms licensing data, supporting operational workflows and enabling improved analytics. The ITT emphasised interoperability with existing policing systems, strong data‑governance controls and the ability to scale nationally across all forces.

What stands out is the limited transparency surrounding the process. Shooting organisations were not consulted and several police forces reported being only partially briefed, informed late in the cycle or not at all. Despite the system’s direct impact on every certificate holder and every licensing team in England and Wales, the communication appears to have been limited.

The announcement of Palantir as the preferred supplier marks a significant shift toward a high‑end, data‑driven platform. While this may offer technical advantages, it also raises important questions about:

  • long‑term governance and data stewardship
  • integration with force‑level case‑management systems
  • cost and contract structure
  • the degree of centralisation the Home Office intends
  • how the system will support -or reshape- local licensing practice

These issues will form a core part of The Tower’s ongoing analysis as more information becomes available.

For more detail see https://pds.police.uk/welcome/about-us/our-expertise/national-firearms-licensing-management-system-replacement/

Why does it matter?

The replacement of NFLMS is not a routine IT upgrade – it is a fundamental redesign of the national infrastructure that governs firearms licensing. The system chosen, the data it holds and the way it integrates with policing will shape how certificate holders are assessed and managed for many years.

But this is not a moment for panic. Nothing changes overnight and no new system can be switched on without extensive testing, governance, and scrutiny. What matters now is understanding the direction of travel: how the new platform may affect processing times, consistency between forces, data handling and the balance between national oversight and local discretion. When a project of this scale progresses with limited consultation, the shooting community is right to ask questions – calmly, constructively, and with an eye on ensuring that any new system improves public safety without eroding fairness, proportionality, or trust.

Palantir in the News

Palantir’s expanding role across UK public services has attracted sustained scrutiny from mainstream media, parliamentary committees, and civil society groups. The reporting below provides wider context for understanding why the NFLMS award is likely to draw attention.

Sky News: Parliamentary committee brands Palantir’s role “unacceptable”

Sky News reports that MPs have warned the UK is becoming over‑reliant on Palantir, calling this an “unacceptable point of weakness” that could leave citizens’ data “at the mercy” of foreign actors. The committee highlighted Palantir’s involvement with the NHS and Financial Conduct Authority, raising concerns about privacy, ethics, and dependency on a small number of US‑based providers.

https://news.sky.com/story/palantirs-role-in-uk-public-services-branded-unacceptable-by-committee-report-13154127

Sky News: Doctors and campaigners urge NHS hospitals to reject Palantir platform

A separate Sky News report describes how doctors, analysts, and human‑rights groups have urged NHS bodies to reconsider adopting Palantir’s £330m Federated Data Platform. Critics argue the rollout is “not going to plan”, with concerns about privacy, spiralling implementation costs, and the displacement of trusted local data solutions.

https://news.sky.com/story/nhs-hospitals-urged-to-reject-330m-data-platform-part-owned-by-trump-ally-13519263

The Guardian: Officials warn Palantir’s reputation could hinder NHS rollout

The Guardian reveals that internal briefings to ministers warned Palantir’s reputation — including its work with ICE and the Israeli military — could undermine public trust and hinder the rollout of the NHS data platform. MPs have described the company as “ghastly” and “highly questionable”, calling for greater transparency around its public‑sector contracts.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/feb/12/nhs-deal-with-ai-firm-palantir-called-into-question-after-officials-concerns-revealed

LBC: Why Palantir is controversial

LBC summarises the core concerns: Palantir’s widening reach across UK public services, its origins in US security and immigration operations, and ethical questions surrounding its work with the Israeli military. MPs warn reliance on the company creates a “clear vulnerability” for the UK.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/what-palantir-uk-why-controversial-5Hjdb68_2/

Business Chief: Public backlash over £600m UK government contracts

Business Chief reports that more than 229,000 people have signed petitions calling for the government to terminate all Palantir contracts, citing concerns about data handling, surveillance, and the company’s work with ICE and the Israeli military. Palantir currently holds around £600m in UK public‑sector contracts across the NHS, MoD, and policing.

https://businesschief.com/news/palantir-faces-backlash-over-600m-uk-government-contracts

Key Points – Next Steps

For certificate holders, the most important message is that nothing changes immediately. The procurement announcement does not alter the law, the licensing process, or your current certificate conditions. Any new system will take years to design, build, test, and implement and will require extensive governance, scrutiny and operational validation before it affects anyone in practice.

What matters now is simply staying informed. Certificate holders should be aware that a more centralised, data‑driven system is being developed and that this may eventually influence how information is shared between forces, how suitability is assessed and how renewals are processed.

But this is a long‑term transition, not an overnight shift. The best next step is to follow developments calmly, understand the direction of travel and ensure your own records, medical arrangements and contact details remain accurate and up to date. The Tower will continue to monitor the process and provide clear, factual updates as more detail emerges.

Open Letter to Home Office and Police

The following letter has been shared with Police Digital Services, the National Police Chief’s Council and the Home Office, with key shooting organisations copied in for transparency.

As the only UK organisation focused exclusively on firearms licensing, FirearmsLicensing.Net is using this space to ensure the community can see the same information being provided to decision‑makers.

The aim is simple: to support clear, consistent communication during the transition to the new NFLMS system and to help reduce uncertainty across the sector.

Sector Comms NFLMS2
  • Vicky Downs
  • No Comments

City of London Police
City of London Police 600 600 Vicky Downs

Introduction

The following update has been provided directly by the City of London Police Firearms and Explosives Licensing Unit (FELU).

It is published here exactly as supplied, in line with our commitment to support clear communication between police forces and the certificate‑holding community.

This initiative is designed to strengthen collaboration, improve understanding of local and national developments and help reduce avoidable delays or misunderstandings in the licensing process.

Content is hosted within our free information section, ensuring there is no commercial benefit and maintaining full transparency.

If any material appears likely to cause difficulty or confusion for certificate holders, we will always raise this with the Force first for discussion.

Firearms and Explosives Licensing Unit (FELU)

Newsletter – June 2026

Dear Reader,

You are receiving this Newsletter as a you have been identified as a key stakeholder in relation to management and processing of Firearms and Explosives Licensing by the City of London Police.

This Newsletter is the first of its kind for the City of London Police and is being distributed with the intention of providing key information to stakeholders, as well as to build and maintain relationships with all parties who have a vested interest in Firearms and Explosives Licensing matters.

The City of London Police Firearms and Explosives Licensing Unit is committed to safeguarding the public whilst providing high levels of customer service for our Certificate Holders.

Local Updates

 

A full review into the working practices and policies of the City of London Police Firearms and Explosives Licensing Unit was undertaken in 2025. As a result, significant amendments have been made to local working practices, in line with updates made to the Statutory Guidance for Chief Officers of Police, in relation to Firearms Licensing.

 

National Updates

Lead Ban

The Government has confirmed when restrictions on the sale and use of lead ammunition will come into force in England, Wales and Scotland, as listed below:

Shotgun Cartridges:

The use and sale of lead shot for live quarry shooting will be banned from 1 April 2029.
The use and sale of lead shot for indoor and outdoor recreational target shooting will also be banned from 1 April 2029, with exemptions for elite athletes.

Rifle Ammunition:

The use and sale of lead bullets for live quarry shooting in calibres 6.17 millimetres and above will be banned from 1 April 2029.
Small calibre rifles below 6.17 millimetres, including commonly used pest control calibres, are not affected by the restrictions.
The use of lead bullets for outdoor target shooting will be restricted from 1 April 2028, except at ranges that meet the required risk management measures.

Airguns:

There are no restrictions on the sale or use of lead airgun pellets for either target shooting or live quarry shooting.
The City of London Police FELU understand that these restrictions may impact certain Firearm and Shotgun Certificate Holders. We strongly advise you to speak with a gunsmith to ensure that your shotgun is appropriately proofed for certain non-lead ammunition, and to explore what alternatives are available.

In addition, we understand that certain calibres of firearm may be less suited to non-lead ammunition at this stage, as such we advise you to seek advice on this matter. However, if you do wish to submit a variation we will aim to process this as efficiently as possible.

Please don’t forget to check-zero your rifle if you are changing ammunition type.

Sound Moderators

The Home Office have announced amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill which removes Sound Moderators from their current classification as Section 1 Firearms. This would mean that Sound Moderators would not need to be individually authorised, and a variation would not be needed to add them. However, a new offence of possessing a sound moderator without a Firearm or Shotgun Certificate will be created. This proposed legislation is not expected to effect Sound Moderators used for low powered air rifles and pistols.

In the meantime, Sound Moderators remain classed as Section 1 Firearms.

Consultation into Firearms Licensing

The Home Office is due to publish a consultation into Firearms Licensing which was originally expected to be published in late 2025 but at the time of writing is yet to be published.

This matter has recently been debated in Parliament following a public petition, opposing proposals to merge Section 1 and Section 2 licensing.

The City of London Police FELU does not have any further information regarding this consultation at this stage.

Fees

The Home Office have announced that Firearms Licensing Fees are set to be increased by 3% as of 04th June 2026.

The City of London Police FELU are committed to providing Certificate Holders and Applicants with the high level of customer service.

Upcoming Events  

The City of London Police FELU are not due to attend any specific events within the next three months.

Feedback

If you have any feedback in relation to this Newsletter or you have suggestions for information that you would like to see included then please contact the Firearms and Explosives Licensing Unit via email.

If you have any questions or concerns in relation to Firearms and Explosives Licensing matters, then please contact the Firearms and Explosives Licensing Unit via email.

Our email address is: firearmsexplosiveslicensing@cityoflondon.police.uk

Thank you,

Firearms and Explosives Licensing Unit
  • 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.
  • 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

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.

 

 
  • 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

Behind the Numbers 2
Behind the Numbers 2 2560 1708 Chris Downs

Introduction

There are lies, damned lies and statistics… but credible national information on firearms licensing is vital for the shooting community.

This is especially important when:

  • Licensing Fees have doubled – What are we getting for the extra money?
  • Backlogs are widespread and these delays threaten the future of the sport.
  • Numbers refused / revoked are at the highest levels since records began.

Previously, I have been critical on the available information. The first article in this series can be found via this link – https://firearmslicensing.net/behind-the-numbers/

Following this I wrote to the National Police Chief’s Council lead raising my concerns and received this reply on 17th August 2025:

what we will be doing with the recent end of July data capture to ensure it can be interpreted by anyone wanting to understand their local firearms licensing performance and compare this nationally.

This updated information can be found via these links:

https://www.npcc.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/media/downloads/publications/publications-log/operations/2025/firearms-licensing-2526-q1-headlines.pdf

https://www.npcc.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/media/downloads/publications/publications-log/operations/2025/firearms-licensing-2526-q2-headlines.pdf

In this article, which will be regularly updated, I walk you through my assessment of the figures provided step-by-step. If numbers aren’t for you then skip to “The End Result” of each section to see the final conclusions.

If viewing on a mobile device please note – All images will be available via the gallery at the bottom of this article which will make them easier to read.

Please note– I am not a statistician and errors can be made. The following is presented in good faith and any required corrections that are highlighted will be addressed and apologies offered if necessary.

Chapter 1 – Complete in 4 months

The “Headlines” at the start of the documents look like this.

It’s usual to present key information at the start of a document (not everyone likes numbers as much as I do!) but are they the right numbers?

It’s very natural to read numbers presented next to each other as being linked together. The column “Total Applications Received in last 12 months” and “% Completed Within 4 Months” are right next to each other.

So looking at Bedfordshire we see 1,824 application have been received and 42% completed within 4 months but what does that tell us? Not what we first think…

The Guidance Notes (See below) make it clear that the “completed in 4 months” percentage is not a percentage of all the applications received but rather a percentage of those received and completed within 12 months.

It’s not easy to understand why these are presented in this was but it can seriously distort your perception of what is going on. To try and explain the risks with this information as clearly as possible I have created this fictitious example.

I receive 100 applications and put 60 into a drawer – I do nothing with these. The remaining 40 I work on and complete 38 within 4 months. The remaining 2 take slightly longer. Of those 40 applications I have processed 95% (38/40 = 95%).

But, in reality only 38% of all applications received have been completed within 4 months.

1 – The Detail

Going back to Bedfordshire this means that if we want to know how many of the applications were completed in 4 months as a percentage of all applications received we need to look closer.

  • 1,824 applications received in the last 12 months. 520 of those were completed.
  • Of those 520 completed 42% were completed within 4 months = 218
  • 218 is 12% of 1,824

1 – The End Result

If we follow this methodology then the results look very different and arguably give a much more accurate idea of performance in this area.

If the image does not display well on the screen go down to the bottom of the article and view it via the gallery.

Across the majority of police forces we now see a very different picture emerging. Taking Gwent as an example we go from 98% (which seems very impressive) to 61%.

Why 4 months?- There is actually some science and background as to why this is important. The Firearms Act 1968 gives those applications received more than 8 weeks before expiry an automatic extension of a further 8 weeks. So 16 weeks in total (4 months ish) is the expected processing time contained in the primary source of law in this area.

Chapter 2 – Productivity

Firearms licensing is a complex system with many variables. The detailed information presented on each individual force is useful but going back to the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) earlier comment on what their ambition was for these statistics:

ensure it can be interpreted by anyone wanting to understand their local firearms licensing performance and compare this nationally.

This is what the detailed force data looks like. Does it achieve their aim and allow anyone to understand and compare? 

2 – The Detail

The balance between making something simple enough to be useful and acknowledging the complexities is difficult and no single measure will ever be perfect.

The other complication is that no two forces are working in the same way and the data, particularly on timeliness, is open to abuse. If a force chooses to leave a new application for a month before placing it onto the system or grant the certificate as soon as it’s received the system will not recognise this and the impact on “performance” will be significant.

The NPCC have set out their expectation below but all the evidence suggests that data manipulation remains widespread.

NPCC Firearms Licensing expects all forces to place firearm, shotgun and registered firearms dealer (RFD) grant and renewal applications onto NFLMS within a brief time of receipt to ensure accurate recording of data. Equally, NFLMS should only be updated to show ‘granted’ when the new certificate is ready for print and onward forwarding to the applicant.

To try to solve these issues I have kept it simple and just considered:

  • Certificate Holders
  • Applications received and completed in last 12 months

This allows us to make a comparison of actual work completed against the numbers of Certificate Holders (the size of the unit).

As a very rough rule of thumb if 20% of applications are completed in one year then the force is managing to keep pace with their existing numbers of certificate holders.

2 – The End Result

Using the approach detailed above I have ranked each force on this basis to enable comment on productivity and comparison between forces.

The yellow highlight shows a percentage which is lower than would be expected and the red and green show top and bottom 15% respectively.

If the image does not display well on the screen go down to the bottom of the article and view it via the gallery.

Chapter 3 – Appetite for Revocation or Refusal

Revocations and refusals are legal means by which a force can remove an existing certificate or deny the issue of a new certificate. Both of these measures have a right of appeal to your local Crown Court. However, in practice this is infrequently used because of the prohibitive costs involved. For someone challenging a police decision:

  • The best-case scenario is a £6,000 (approx.) legal bill and the return of your firearms.
  • The worst case scenario is a £12,000 – 15,000 legal bill and you remain without your guns.

This is because the person bringing the action is responsible for their own legal bill if they win or usually have to pay for police costs if they lose.

There are a number of factors that can make you more likely to find yourself in this situation and probably the most significant is your postcode!

Someone in South Yorkshire is 25 times more likely to find themselves in this situation than if they lived in Avon & Somerset.

Therefore, the rate of revocations and refusals issued by a force is important information for a shooter.

3 – The Detail

It would be unfair to use the numbers of revocations and refusals on their own because that does not take into account the size of the force and numbers of certificate holders.

It would be reasonable to assume that force A with twice the numbers of holders of force B might reasonably issue twice the numbers of revocations as a result.

To give some clearer idea of individual forces approach in this area I have added together the number of revocations and refusals issued in a yearly period and divided this by the total number of certificate holders. This gives a percentage that we can use to rank forces and give a clearer idea of what is going on in this area.

3 – The End Result

 

Chapter 4 – Trends

1. Productivity Changes

  • Most forces show a decline in productivity from Q3 2024/25 to Q2 2025/26. During the three periods the total numbers of files completed across the UK starts at 115,500, then goes down to 100,500 and finishes on 91,700. That’s an overall decrease of 20% which is highly concerning and begun before the latest version of Statutory Guidance was issued.
  • Several forces, such as Cumbria and Dyfed Powys, have managed to maintain or slightly improve productivity over the period.
  • Surrey: Experienced the largest drop in productivity from 3,950 (which seems very high) to 1,315
  • Cumbria: Shows consistently high productivity and even a slight increase, bucking the national trend. Cumbria is 2.5 times more productive than the lowest performing Force Bedfordshire.

2. Holders Change

  • The number of certificate holders is decreasing across all forces. In total 17,779 Certificate Holders have been lost since
  • The largest reductions are seen in, Metropolitan Police (-1,479), Devon & Cornwall (-1,041), and Norfolk (-1,009) have the largest reductions.

3. Refusals and Revocations

  • The percentage of refusals and revocations as a proportion of holders remains relatively stable across all periods.
  • The highest proportion of refusals and revocations are seen in South Yorkshire, Gwent and Cumbria.
  • The disproportionate nature of the refusals and revocations rate continues to be seen. A Certificate Holder’s postcode can make them over 25 times more likely to be revoked (South Yorskshire v Avon & Somerset).

4. Temporary Permits

  • The number of temporary permits issued has increased from 1,501 to 2,089. This is a 38% increase and is a clear warning of a system under significant strain.
  • The biggest increases in numbers of permits are seen in Humberside (by a huge margin) followed by Bedfordshire. Several smaller increases are seen across Forces such as Surrey, Suffolk and Staffordshire.

Summary Chart –

The following chart summarises my assessment of where each Force ranks according to Productivity and Revocation & Refusals. If this does not display on your mobile device please open it via the gallery below.

In Conclusion:

The current presentation of firearms licensing statistics reveals a troubling lack of clarity, consistency, and methodological transparency from the police. These figures are not just confusing; they risk misleading stakeholders and undermining public trust.

Under the UK Statistics Authority’s Code of Practice for Statistics, official data must uphold the principles of trustworthiness, quality, and value. That means clear definitions, robust methods, and relevance to users.

Firearms licensing affects public safety, individual rights, and operational accountability. If we are to govern it fairly, the data must meet the same standards of integrity we expect from the system itself.

Transparency is not a luxury. It’s a duty.


Gallery – Chapter 1


Gallery – Chapter 2


Gallery – Chapter 3


Gallery – Chapter 4
  • Chris Downs
  • No Comments

Backlogs & BCH
Backlogs & BCH 1536 1024 Chris Downs

Introduction:

Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire (BCH) police forces collaborate when it comes to firearms licensing.

We’re committed to working constructively with this Tri-Force team as they navigate significant delays.

But let’s be clear: the rights of the public, the law and police obligations matter now more than ever.

Understanding your rights isn’t about confrontation, it’s about ensuring fair, lawful treatment in a system that serves both public safety and individual responsibility.

It’s why we’ve put together this free article which analyses the position and key messages that can be found on the service updates page of the individual Forces.

It provides some guidance on the main issues and also has links to further information.

Updated Analysis:

Following the HMICFRS Accelerated Cause of Concern

Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire & Hertfordshire’s tri‑force firearms and explosives licensing unit has long been a point of concern for certificate holders across the region. Our original analysis of the BCH model highlighted deep structural issues: declining productivity, governance drift, inconsistent processes, and a growing reliance on temporary permits.

The accelerated Cause of Concern issued by HMICFRS now confirms those risks formally and urgently. This is a rare intervention, reserved for situations where public‑safety functions are failing at a level that requires immediate corrective action.

There is no satisfaction in seeing these concerns validated. Firearms licensing is a public‑safety function. When it struggles, everyone loses: certificate holders, the wider public, and the officers and staff doing their best inside an overstretched system.

What HMICFRS Found

The inspection identified several critical failings requiring urgent action:

  • Severe backlogs, with some applications outstanding for up to two years
  • Over 1,000 temporary permits issued, creating duplicated work and delaying final decisions
  • Weak case management, with limited supervision and inconsistent file handling
  • Certificates signed off without proper delegated authority
  • No consistent procedures for seizure or revocation
  • A desk‑based shotgun renewal process that may leave the public at risk
  • More than 2,000 unanswered emails and no public contact number
  • Staff unclear about roles, responsibilities, and delegated powers

These findings mirror the concerns we raised months ago. The tri‑force model, designed to create resilience, has instead become a single point of failure. When governance, demand, and process fall out of alignment, risk accumulates quickly — and visibly.

How This Aligns With Our Original Analysis

Our earlier article examined BCH’s own service‑update messaging and five‑year output data. We highlighted:

  • a sustained decline in productivity
  • the normalisation of temporary permits as a structural tool
  • the absence of clear, force‑level accountability
  • the mismatch between public messaging and operational reality
  • the fragility created by a tri‑force model without strong governance anchors

The HMICFRS Cause of Concern now provides independent confirmation of those issues. It also exposes the consequences of a system where responsibility is shared, but ownership is blurred.

The inspection findings do not represent a sudden collapse they are the predictable outcome of long‑term structural strain.

Why This Matters

Firearms licensing is not an administrative convenience; it is a statutory public‑safety function. When delays stretch into years, when temporary permits become routine, when communication channels collapse, and when decision‑making lacks proper authority, the system ceases to be safe, fair, or lawful.

The BCH model has reached that point. HMICFRS is right to intervene.

Where We Go From Here

The priority now is recovery, not blame. HMICFRS has provided a clear roadmap, and BCH has an opportunity perhaps its most important to stabilise the system and rebuild trust.

We remain fully committed to engaging constructively with BCH and supporting any efforts to:

  • strengthen governance and delegated authority
  • restore timely, lawful decision‑making
  • reduce reliance on temporary permits
  • improve communication with the public
  • embed consistent, defensible processes across all three forces

Our door is open. We will continue to share insight from the frontline, support certificate holders navigating delays, and advocate for a licensing system that is both safe and fair.

For those affected by BCH delays, our original analysis remains available below, along with practical guidance on renewals, temporary permits, and grant delays. The situation is serious but with transparency, accountability, and sustained effort, it can be fixed.

Force Information

Each force has published its own update. The text appears identical but here’s where to find them:

Bedfordshire – https://www.beds.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/fi/bch/firearms-licensing-service-update/

Cambridgeshire – https://www.cambs.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/fi/bch/firearms-licensing-service-update/

Hertfordshire – https://www.herts.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/fi/bch/firearms-licensing-service-update/

Reasons for delay:

This service update begins by explaining that the current levels of service offered are as a result of:

  • Statutory Guidance – The changes to the requirement on police have resulted in extra work in the form of additional checks and scrutiny.
  • Increased demand – further clarity on what this entails would help applicants plan more effectively.

There is no doubt that Statutory Guidance has imposed a more rigorous series of checks but this has been consistent across the UK and was first issued in November 2021.

In addition to this, if we examine the combined output from BCH over the last 5 years it does not seem to support the mentioned increase in demand.

Note – For the sake of simplicity (and because not everyone likes lots of data like me) I have only considered shotgun grants and renewals over the past five years. This data is drawn from published Home Office Statistics and usually represents the bulk of a firearms licensing departments work.

Key Messages:

These are drawn from the service updates that can be found on their website but also include links to further practical guidance on the various issues raised:

1) Renewals are taking around 9 months – BCH ask you to submit your application at

“least 20–24 weeks before expiry to avoid falling foul of Section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968”.

Ensuring you do not fall into unlawful possession is vital and we would always recommend working with the requirements of your firearms licensing team

BUT… what if you don’t read the website or can’t submit a renewal application that early?

The law states that an application for renewal received not less than 8 weeks before expiry benefits from an 8 week extension.

Statutory Guidance states that the renewal should be complete by the original expiry date unless “exceptional circumstances” apply and then the Police have a further period which acts as a safety net (The 8 week extension)

Provided you submit in the timeframe above your expectation should be that your renewal will be complete.

Why this is so important relates to the issue of storage and whether the police will expect you to arrange and pay for it while they process your renewal.

The police are not obliged to provide secure storage but according to Statutory Guidance the police should:

the police should work with the applicant to make the necessary arrangements for the safe, legal storage of their property until such time as the application is decided, or the police may consider the issue of a temporary permit, issued in accordance with section 7 of the Firearms Act 1968.

The links below will lead you to 2 articles that are highly relevant to his and provide further detail.

Renewal delays – https://firearmslicensing.net/delays-renewals/

Provides an overview of how firearms / shotgun certificate holders can navigate the renewal process, particularly in the event of delays.

It explains the legal framework, statutory expectations, and the options available when processing takes longer than anticipated.

Temporary Permits – https://firearmslicensing.net/temporary-permits/

Temporary Permits were designed to bridge short gaps—not to become a workaround for systemic delays. Responsible shooters deserve timely, fair treatment.

2) Grants are facing a minimum 12-month wait – but from our customers we know that this is typically significantly longer.

Grant Delays – https://firearmslicensing.net/grant-delays/

This article addresses delays in the processing of firearms certificate grants, highlighting how factors like COVID-related backlogs, the Keyham tragedy, and the introduction of statutory GP requirements have slowed the system. It explains that while the NPCC suggests a 4-month timeline for “non-complex” grants, this varies widely across forces. The piece offers practical steps applicants can take to streamline their application and suggests escalating if necessary.

3) Accurate applications are critical – You should double-check your paperwork before submission.

 Accurate Applications – https://firearmslicensing.net/application-process/

This article provides detailed guidance on completing the UK firearms application form (Form 201), emphasising accuracy and transparency. It highlights the importance of avoiding false statements, ensuring all sections are completed correctly to prevent rejection.

In Summary:

Whether you’re renewing, applying, or stuck in limbo – don’t go it alone.

If you live in Beds, Cambs or Herts (or anywhere else) and want principled, practical support – join us today.

Use code BCH50off for a full year of guidance via our ultimate self-help guide for just £6.

Signing up couldn’t be easier:

  • Follow this link – Register.
  • Add your details to the simple registration form.
  • Select Essential Membership and enter discount code BCH50off.

Alternatively… if you want direct support and problem solving done for you... select the complete membership and leave it all to us. We will assess and understand your situation and then advocate on your behalf to resolve it.

Don’t go it alone and always feel free to reach out to us via this link.

 
  • Chris Downs
  • No Comments

Drug Tests
Drug Tests 2560 1707 Chris Downs

Introduction

Put simply, a drug is any substance that alters how the body or more importantly, the mind functions.

With this in mind I don’t think it’s controversial to say that illicit drug use and safe firearm ownership are not compatible.

But what does the law say and how should police decide on whether to conduct any test?

This guide covers the legal basis for drug testing, when it may be applied, and what to expect if you’re asked to undergo one.

The Law

A key principle of Firearms Licensing is the idea of danger to public safety or the peace. It is mentioned throughout legislation both in terms of grant, refusal and revocation of certificates.

In brief; it is defined as:

A danger to public safety or the peace exists if the applicant’s ownership of the firearm could result in harm to self or others or disturb good order in public.

The Guidance

Statutory Guidance (Aug ’25) directs police as to the checks that they should make in order to ensure that there is no danger to public safety. Within this document “additional non-routine checks” are detailed as follows:

2.55 Chief officers should carry out additional, non-routine, checks if, following the initial enquiries above, they believe them to be necessary to assess suitability fully.

 

Factors that merit the carrying out of additional checks will depend on the circumstances of each individual case. Police forces are responsible for determining when additional checks should be undertaken.

 

2.56 More generally, these checks may include, but are not limited to:

a drug or alcohol test

The critical parts are:

  • These tests are not routine
  • The need for them should be assessed on the individual circumstances
  • Police are responsible for deciding when additional checks should be undertaken.

The Practical Considerations

When the need for these checks is determined solely by the police it raises concerns about consistency and fairness in application.

There are two ways in which police might choose to apply these tests:

  • Police issue tests – Usually used for drug driving.
  • Independent testing – Where you are required to provide a sample to an independent laboratory for testing.

The independent laboratory option gives you reassurance that the test will be conducted in scientific conditions but they will charge you somewhere between £350 and £550 dependent on the type of test.

Note – Costs vary depending on the number of substances tested and whether segmented analysis is required.

In Conclusion

Illicit drug use is not prevalent in the shooting community.

Guidance emphasises that these tests are not routine and their use should be decided  on the basis of individual circumstances.

Refusing a test doesn’t automatically lead to revocation but it’s essential to understand your rights and the reasoning behind the request.

If you find yourself being required to complete such a test you are well within your rights to ask for an explanation as to why the test is necessary.

Only once you have received this explanation should you decide whether to comply.

In any case it is time to contact us via this link and get support from the experts.

Back to top