FIREARMS LICENSING: A consultation on recommendations for changes made to the Home Office

On Thursday, 13 February 2025, the Home Office published FIREARMS LICENSING, A consultation on recommendations for changes made to the Home Office, in effect its response to the 2023 consultation.  This consultation occurred after the report into the  Keyham murders and the Skye murder and shootings.  Firstly, each was completely different; however, each resulted in significant loss of future life and devastating tragedies for the surviving families.  Our sorry goes out to all the victims and their loved ones.

The consultation can be found here.  Firearms licensing: recommendations for changes - GOV.UK  As always, it is essential that you read the report to understand what it says and does not say.

I will deal with each topic in turn.

The controls on shotguns (Page 3)

The Government states

The previous Government decided, before publishing the consultation, not to consult on the recommendations that had been made to align shotgun and firearms legislation. This was on the basis that shotguns were already subject to significant controls and have important uses in farming and in leisure pursuits. We have noted, however, that a number of respondents to the consultation expressed disappointment that it did not include the issue of closer alignment of the controls on shotguns and other firearms. This included some law enforcement respondents, who considered that further controls on shotguns would increase public safety, and others including people who had been affected by shotgun shooting incidents. Some of these respondents pointed to the risks associated with shotguns being kept in certificate holders’ own homes, including in towns and cities.

The Government takes the view that shotguns are no less lethal than other firearms that are controlled under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968, and that it is right to look again at the differences in the controls and whether it is sensible, in order to address the risks that shotguns and firearms present if misused, to consider greater alignment of the controls. The Government therefore intends to issue a new consultation on improving and aligning the controls on shotguns with other firearms. We intend to publish this consultation later this year.

It has been reported that the Government intends to have guns stored elsewhere.  That is not the case.  The consultation merely states that some of the respondents were concerned about guns being kept is certificate holders’ houses.  It doesn’t say it is going to do anything about it.  If this is raised in the future, there are a myriad of arguments which can be deployed against such a proposal.

More importantly, the Government indicates that it will hold a further consultation on aligning firearms and shotgun legislation. 

It is of note that the tests for the application of a firearm and a shotgun are different, as are the revocation processes.  See Sections 27, 28, 30A and 30C of the Firearms Act 1968.  Given this consultation has its genesis in tragedies, there is a fair argument to be presented to align the revocation process.  Given that revocations and refusals are extremely low in the certificate-possessing community, it will be difficult to argue against this. 

It has been reported that the assumption will be that you will have to have a good reason to apply for each shotgun.  You already have to provide a good reason to possess a shotgun.  If the Government wants to change this legislation, it will have a far more reasoned argument presented against it.  Not only will it considerably increase bureaucracy, but there will also be a mammoth compensation bill.  Is this something that the Government has an appetite for?  We will see.

A power of immediate seizure of firearms, shotguns and ammunition  (Page 22).

The Government states  ‘Having weighed up the evidence, and having considered the responses to this consultation, the Government’s view is that there is a potential public safety gap in that the police do not have a backstop power to enter premises to seize firearms where there are grounds for re-assessing a certificate holder’s suitability, but the certificate holder is uncooperative with the police. The delay that is caused by the need to obtain a warrant could prove fatal. While it is to be hoped that a certificate holder will usually cooperate with the police, a new backstop power will provide certainty that the police can act decisively should circumstances so require. The Government therefore intends to legislate to provide the police with a new power of entry when a suitable legislative opportunity arises.’

The current situation regarding legislative seizure is contained in Section 44 of the Firearms Act 1968.  If the police wish to force entry and recover the firearm, they require a warrant.  In emergency situations, they can resort to common law powers.  Warrants are issued rarely because the vast majority of those who possess firearms are law-abiding, responsible, sensible people.  In the current Home Office statutory guidance, at paragraph 4.8 it states;

A power of entry, subject to warrant, is available to the police. While this is an important power, it will not be necessary in all cases where an inspection or home visit is required. It is expected that responsible certificate holders will co-operate with reasonable requests to inspect security arrangements or other aspects of suitability, and failure to do so may be taken into account when police consider suitability to possess the firearms. To mitigate any misunderstanding on the part of the certificate holder, the police should provide a clear and reasoned explanation to the certificate holder at the time of the visit.

When this was in draft, we argued that no negative inference should be drawn when a legal recourse was available. The police argued for this, and as is often the case, the police view was taken.

The Government will move towards the introduction of this, and representations will be made at the Bill stages; however, given the weight of the majority of the government, it is unlikely that this will not progress, albeit in a more proportionate manner similar to the oversight of RIPA and PACE legislation. We will be progressing an FOI to ascertain how many warrants have been required to seize firearms. I imagine it will be a small number.

Length of certificate before renewal required (Page 23)

For a number of years now, it has been generally accepted by the official side, the Home Office and the police, and the membership originations that 10-year certificates would be a goal to seek to achieve once the passive surveillance measures were in place – command and control systems, GP systems etc.  This has been stopped in the meantime.  The Government response is ‘The Government is clear that public safety must be the paramount consideration and is of the view that no changes should be made to the duration of certificates at this time.’  Hopefully the sliver of light should be the inclusion of the words at this time.  There may still be a slight pulse.

The number of referees to support an application for a shotgun certificate (Page 26)

At this time, only one referee is needed for a shotgun certificate application.  Firearm Certificates require two.  The Government will increase these to two for shotgun certificates.

They state ‘Having considered this issue, and taking into account the responses to the consultation, the Government has decided that there should be a requirement on applicants for both firearms and shotguns to provide the name of two referees. The Government will look to make this change by an amendment to the Firearms Rules 1988, and to the relevant application form, as soon as is practicable’.

The rest of the consultation deals with various other matters that are not of significant consequence. The Home Office Statutory Guidance will be amended this year to reflect pertinent points from the Keyham matter.

Our greatest concern remains, and that is the ability of the police, particularly in England and Wales ability, to deal with the changes uniformly and with sense.  We are continually astounded by the ignorance of some firearms licensing departments.  Some are exceptionally good.  They act fairly, with integrity and with respect.  Others, meanwhile, seem to have a complete lack of understanding of these three words and treat honest, law-abiding people with complete disdain and disregard.  Both the Government and the NPCC need to get a grip on this and stop hiding behind ‘it's an operational matter’.  Decisions to issue a certificate or not and the background enquiry process are operational matters.  The delivery of a service is not.  Special measures are available to the Home Secretary to demand service improvements.  This should be done to drive underperforming forces forward.

Before the general election in 2024, the shooting community expressed significant concern that a Labour Government would be elected. These concerns have come home to roost. We will keep you updated about future consultations on the change to shotgun certification.

In the meantime, please read this consultation. It is essential; it affects you. Look at what is being said. Should you have any queries, please don’t hesitate to phone the office, and we will do our best to help you.  It’s your organisation and we are here to help.