The Government’s intention to consult on aligning Section 1 and Section 2 licensing has created significant concern across the shooting community. Speaking to Gun Trade Insider, Edward King, GTA council member and managing director of ASI, set out why the potential changes could have profound implications for certificate holders, the gun trade and the wider rural economy.
Asked how significant the proposal could be, Edward did not understate the scale of the issue. “This is the 64-million-dollar question, and ironically it is probably worth far more than that to the trade. If what many fear actually happens in the worst-case scenario, it would be catastrophic for the trade, and not just the trade, it would be catastrophic across the board.”
He explained that the current framework allows Section 2 certificate holders to own shotguns without justifying each individual gun. A move towards a Section 1-style regime, where every gun requires specific good reason, would fundamentally change that. “At the moment, the law allows a shotgun certificate holder to possess shotguns in the plural. There is no technical limit. If a full good reason requirement were imposed on every individual shotgun, I imagine they would begin with grandfather rights, but the nature of the certificate would change at renewal.”
Renewal, Edward said, is where shooters would encounter substantial challenges. “People would find themselves having to explain to their licensing officer why they need more than two or three shotguns. Many of us own more than that for perfectly legitimate reasons under the current Acts. Under a strict Section 1-type test you would have to justify each gun, how you use it and where.”
For some shooters, this could become practically unworkable. “If you buy your shooting days as the season approaches, as many people do, you might not know exactly where you will be shooting when your renewal comes up. A licensing officer could ask you to confirm venues in advance, and of course shoot owners cannot promise dates you haven’t yet booked.”
Clay shooters would face similar difficulties. “It would be demanding to prove regular use at one particular ground if you shoot at several different places. And for game shooters, people often use different bores for different scenarios, a 12-bore for some days, a 20-bore or even a 28-bore for others. Justifying that variety could become complicated.”
Edward warned that long-standing collections could come under immediate pressure. “One can easily imagine someone who has built up eight, ten or twelve shotguns over the years being told at renewal that they cannot justify them all. They might be told to dispose of most of them.”
This would inevitably affect gun dealers. “If ten people walk into a shop in a single day with collections they need to dispose of, the dealer is not going to be able to cope, they won’t have the cash flow or the storage. It could leave people with guns they are required to get rid of, but with nowhere practical to take them.”
He suggested that new grants could become even harder to obtain. “Some forces are already tough on new applications. If they are given another tool to tighten the tap, they could reduce grants to almost nothing.”
The same pressures could extend to ammunition. “A Section 1-style regime could require shooters to account for all cartridges purchased and used, and an arbitrary limit could be set on how many you can buy or hold. That would give forces yet another means of squeezing lawful use.”
Edward stressed that the financial consequences could be severe. “If this rips the heart out of the trade, and that is what we fear, the losses will be enormous. A recent GTA survey, when extrapolated, suggests almost a billion pounds. That doesn’t even include the revenue to the hospitality sector, hotels, laundries, butchers, country houses – all the businesses that rely on winter shooting. In many rural areas, shooting is a winter lifeline. If that goes, many will not stay open.”
He also questioned the underlying reason for such a major reform. “Is there any increased public-safety threat that requires this? The tragedies that are mentioned, Plymouth and Luton, were not failures of the system itself. In one case it was the way the system was administered; in the other, the individual intended to break the law. Legally held shotguns are very rarely used in crime. Gun crime overall has fallen to an all-time low.”
Edward warned that licensing departments are already operating beyond capacity. “They are not coping as it is. If you add what could be a trebling of their workload, and that’s before you even factor in variations, licensing departments would melt down.”
Looking ahead, Edward emphasised the importance of industry-wide engagement. “The first step is to wait for the consultation to be published. Once it opens, everyone with a certificate, of either type, needs to respond. The more the better. If we can get 100,000 responses, or even 150,000, that would send a clear message.”
He said major organisations are already coordinating. “As soon as this issue arose, the big organisations began talking. This is a fight we all have to fight, and we all need to play to our strengths.”
For Edward, the priority is unity. “As soon as the consultation opens, people must not dawdle. Get on there and respond. Show solidarity. I genuinely believe that with enough engagement, we can bring some reason into this and avoid the worst-case scenario.”
