With the Home Office preparing a consultation that could align Section 2 shotguns with Section 1 firearms, barrister Nick Doherty examines whether the proposals would genuinely improve public safety or simply damage the UK gun trade.
Readers will be aware that the Government intend to hold a Consultation on proposed changes to firearms legislation. We do not know yet when the consultation will launch, or the questions that will be posed. What has been trailed is the idea that the licensing of Section 2 shotguns will be ‘aligned’ with the licensing of Section 1 firearms. Taken at face value, that will decimate the gun trade as there will be no possibility of spontaneous purchase of a shotgun. It would also be impossible for police licensing departments to administer as they will immediately face having to consider good reason for some 500,000 shotguns.
The purpose of this article is to consider the broader picture. The principle question to consider is whether such a move would actually alter the risk posed by licensed firearms holders. These proposals are being justified, at least in part, by the fact that the tragedy in Plymouth was committed with a shotgun.
The first issue is that of suitability. The 2025 version of the Statutory Guidance applies rigorous tests as to whether an applicant is suitable to hold firearms. That test applies to all firearms and shotguns equally. The law is clear – suitability is the same whether you want a .410 shotgun or a .700 Nitro Express rifle. There is therefore no logical argument with respect to public safety to merge the licensing of shotguns and Section 1 firearms because the same test of ‘suitability’ is already applied.
A key difference between Section 2 and Section 1 is the requirement for good reason. There is a requirement that a shotgun certificate [‘SGC’] will not be granted if the police ‘are satisfied that the applicant does not have a good reason for possessing, purchasing or acquiring one’. The burden is reversed with Section 1, and furthermore the applicant has to demonstrate a good reason for each firearm, whereas once a SGC is granted it permits the possession of an unlimited number of shotguns, subject only to the capability to store them securely.
Does a ‘good reason’ requirement contribute to public safety? It no doubt restricts the number of Section 1 firearms held by certificate holders, but does that improve safety if they are properly stored? I suggest it makes no measurable difference. It really is quite difficult to fire more than one gun at once. Since we have to proceed on the basis that the certificate holder is suitable, and will not misuse his firearms, how is danger to the public increased by being able to purchase additional shotguns without prior authorisation, assuming he keeps them locked up?
The conditions for obtaining an SGC also includes circumstances ‘where [the] applicant intends neither to use the gun himself nor to lend it for anyone else to use’. Some shotguns are of considerable financial and sentimental value. This underlines the lack of a good reason requirement. However, more importantly, the incidents of lawfully held shotguns being used in armed crime is ‘statistically insignificant’, to use the language the Home Office might adopt. If these proposals are as is being suggested, what is the justification for such a change?
There may be a proposal that Section 2 ammunition will also be placed in Section 1. This would cause huge problems for dealers and clay grounds as well as individual SGC holders as the security for storing the ammunition would need to be much larger than is currently required. Such ammunition is already defined in legislation and I see no good argument for such a move. Even if the licensing of shotguns were merged with Section 1, there is no justification for doing the same with the cartridges. They are of no use without a gun.
As threatened, the proposed changes will have a serious adverse effect on a number of shooting sports in this country. In addition to the problems set out above, thought will need to be given as to how this would affect borrowing guns in the presence of others and when novices are under instruction. If the Government want to change the law, they should provide proper justification.
I would add that there are some other proposals which have been raised which might improve public safety. The transfer of firearms having to be conducted through a dealer, for example, which would prevent sale to criminals in car parks using false certificates. A proper online database of certificate holders might also improve the efficiency of licensing departments.
If the purpose of the proposed changes is to significantly reduce shooting sports in Britain, then from what we know so far it will be very successful. If the purpose is to reduce the limited risk posed by certificate holders, then it should be properly justified. Let’s be presented with the facts, not emotional political arguments which cannot be justified.
When the Consultation opens, be ready with your reasoned arguments and respond as widely as you can.
