Simon West, executive director of the Gun Trade Association, warns that proposed changes to shotgun licensing could disrupt the trade, urging the industry to unite in protecting the shotgun certificate from unnecessary restrictions.
Shotguns were excluded from requiring a licence in the Firearms Act of 1920, which exercised controls on firearms likely to be used by terrorists and revolutionaries. When shotguns became increasingly prevalent in crime in the 1960s, the requirement for shotguns to be covered by a shotgun certificate was incorporated in the 1968 Act.
The biggest threat to the way our trade operates is back on the agenda. The future of the shotgun certificate is at risk. If there was ever a time to have strong representation and clear arguments, it is now.
Since Jake Davison conducted his attacks in Plymouth, calls have come from the family, gun control organisations, and the police for a review of legislation surrounding shotgun licensing:
- The families want to see the law updated to end the distinction between the licensing of shotguns and rifles (BBC).
- Gun Control Network demands that all lethal guns are licensed in the same way, with each gun requiring an identified purpose (GCN).
- The coroner said, “Changes in the law could see limits placed on the types of shotguns legally held, the type of ammunition a certificate holder could buy and amounts they could store.”
- Chief constable Deborah Tedds, then national lead on firearms licensing, stated that “legislation needs to be overhauled to make the licensing regime for shotguns as strict as for section one firearms.”
- The IOPC recommends that legislation and national guidance be amended to remove any distinction between the processes and requirements for shotgun and firearms certificate holders.
It would appear the issue was the way the legal basis for licensing procedures functions, but we know better. Think how challenging it is to get either a shotgun certificate or FAC—a reality long in place before Plymouth.
Let’s revisit the inquest and see what the jury actually said.
The jury’s findings
- There was a catastrophic failure in the management of the FELU, with a lack of managerial supervision, inadequate and ineffective leadership, compounded by a lack of senior management and executive leadership who failed to address these issues.
- Devon and Cornwall Police’s FELU staff failed to obtain sufficient medical information for the perpetrator’s shotgun certificate application and on review.
- Devon and Cornwall Police lacked safe and robust systems.
- FELU staff did not seek out and consider all available evidence and information before granting the perpetrator a shotgun certificate.
- Serious failures by Devon and Cornwall Police FELU in granting and later failing to revoke the perpetrator’s shotgun certificate.
- In licensing the perpetrator to have a shotgun, there was a serious failure to protect the deceased.
The real failings were not due to the way the law was written but to the police’s failure to meet their duties. The call for “harmonisation of shotguns and firearms licensing” lacks clear evidence-based justification.
The Conservative government understood this, deciding that no legal change was required, stating:
“Specific criteria must be met in order for a shotgun or firearm certificate to be granted, including the applicant meeting the required suitability checks to the satisfaction of the police. This supports public safety and the need for the applicant to only be granted a firearms or shotgun certificate if the police judge that person as fit to have a firearm.”
Why is there a threat?
The police are still attempting to deflect blame. Recently, they stated they are lobbying the government for a harmonised system. The Labour government may support this move. Now is the time for careful thought.
The details are crucial. Minor adjustments to the law, such as requiring two referees and justifying possession, should suffice without imposing significantly stricter challenges than today.
However, greater risks loom. Some proponents of “alignment” envision the elimination of the shotgun certificate altogether. Our goal must be the retention of the shotgun certificate and the freedoms it allows.
We must avoid a scenario where we need to justify owning more than one shotgun, apply for variations for every new gun, face limits on cartridge purchases, fill out certificates for every box of cartridges, or lose the 72-hour rule and Section 2 ammunition.
I view the shotgun certificate as a model for future licensing. Once an individual is deemed suitable, they should have access to firearms within a specific class, reducing unnecessary administration. Firearms licensing should be about the person. Let’s conduct fair checks on applicants, add progression conditions if needed, and ensure that suitability is determined by personal responsibility rather than arbitrary limits on shotgun numbers.
The shotgun certificate authorises shotgun possession, but it means much more to the trade. Losing it would drown us in bureaucracy and cost us business.
The shotgun was once seen as a harmless tool, unsuitable for terrorism. Today’s society faces threats from those who would misuse firearms, making it fair to expect thorough scrutiny of applicants. Reasonable steps like requiring two referees and a stated purpose make sense, but the shotgun certificate itself must remain.
The GTA will fight to protect the shotgun certificate. Stand with us.
You can read the full December 2024 issue below:
