Summary
The Home Office may soon collapse two distinct licensing regimes into one. This move risks undermining public safety, destabilizing lawful ownership, and ignoring the true lessons of Keyham.
Introduction
On 29 June 2023, the Home Office launched a public consultation on proposed changes to UK firearms licensing. These proposals stem from high-profile reviews, including:
- The Prevention of Future Deaths report following the tragic shooting in Keyham, 2021
- The Independent Office for Police Conduct’s assessment of Devon and Cornwall Police’s handling of the case
- The Scottish Affairs Committee’s inquiry into regional firearm regulations
- The Coroner’s Warning—and Government Response
In his report, Senior Coroner Sir Ian Arrow expressed concern over the statutory presumption that certificates “shall be granted” unless specific criteria are not met. He recommended reversing this—requiring applicants to first prove their suitability.
The Home Office replied:
We have carefully considered your point… but do not agree… Sections 27 and 28 are drafted to support consistency in police decision-making and give certainty to the applicant… This supports public safety…
This exchange reveals a tension between professional opinions that we now see changed under the current UK Government.
Why Do We Have Two Regimes?
Shotguns were historically treated as culturally distinct from pistols and rifles, due to their use in agriculture and sport. As such, they were not originally subject to the same controls.
In fact, the law specifically states that shotgun possession should not be restricted to those who intend to use them or lend them to others to use (See Sec 28(1B) Firearms Act 1968). This enables possession of heirlooms, antiques and for other diverse reasons.
The History
- Firearms Act 1920: Targeted pistols and rifles feared to be misused by revolutionaries. Shotguns, which were commonplace, were excluded.
- Firearms Act 1937: Mentioned shotguns for the first time, defining them as having barrels at least 20 inches long (now 24″).
- Firearms Act 1968: Consolidation: In response to rising crime involving “sawn-off” shotguns, this Act introduced Section 2 shotgun certificates with less stringent requirements than Section 1 firearms.
This historical position reflects not just convenience, but public consensus—recognising practical and cultural differences.
The likely affects of alignment
The proposal to require shotgun holders to justify each firearm (as under Section 1) would:
- Overwhelm disposal channels: If holders relinquish shotguns en masse, lawful disposal pathways (RFDs & Police) may fail—raising risks of diversion.
- Put shooting at risk: Thousands may surrender certificates, not due to risk but because of increased red tape.
- Strain police capacity: Additional scrutiny means more checks, longer processing times, and resource reallocation.
- Fail to address root causes: Keyham and similar tragedies involve failures of assessment and enforcement—not regime design.
Importantly, none of the past incidents cited would likely have been prevented by the proposed alignment. Legislation should be evidence-led, proportionate, and practical.
Conclusion:
Public Safety Must Lead—Not Political Optics
Shotgun and firearm regimes are different for good reason. Reform should enhance actual safety, not just the appearance of control. That means assessing holder suitability, ensuring enforcement consistency, and supporting lawful ownership—not destabilizing it.
The Home Office is expected to launch a second consultation later in 2025. Every stakeholder—shooting organisations, legal experts, certificate holders, and the public—must engage.
This isn’t administrative tidying. It’s a fork in the road for UK shooting culture. Reform must serve real safety—not just the illusion of control.
