14-Nov-2025
The UK Government is now formally proposing to bring shotgun ownership under the same licensing regime as rifles and other firearms: a full convergence of the Firearms Act 1968 Section 1 (rifles) and Section 2 (shotguns) systems. While the stated aim is public safety, the impact on the shooting, trade, and countryside industries could be profound.
The consultation material published by organisations such as the Countryside Alliance indicates the government is proposing “greater alignment between the conditions for licensing Section 1 and Section 2 firearms under the 1968 Act”.
In short:
Under the current regime, a shotgun certificate (Section 2) is more lightly regulated than a firearm certificate (Section 1).
The government is now exploring the option of treating shotguns more like rifles: for example requiring each firearm/shotgun to have a “good reason” for ownership, stricter controls and administrative burden.
The consultation document and commentary make clear that the police licensing units are seen as under-resourced already, and adding many more certificate-holders would press the system further.
From the perspective of shotgun owners, retailers, shooting grounds, estates and rural businesses, this shift would be one of the most significant regulatory changes in decades.
If shotgun owners are required to go through the same application process as rifle owners (which often requires specifying each firearm, a detailed justification of good reason, more thorough security checks), then:
Many more applicants will enter the system, stretching existing licensing units.
Waiting times may grow significantly, discouraging new entrants, hobbyists, casual shooters or small-scale operators.
Retailers will see delayed sales, reduced turnover and fewer impulse or casual purchases.
Shooting estates and grounds will face attrition of members or participants, if access becomes harder and slower.
The shotgun market is a cornerstone of the countryside economy: game shooting, clay shooting, pest control, rural management all rely on shotguns. If licensing becomes more onerous:
Dealers and retailers who rely on shotgun sales may see a significant drop in business.
The cost to certificate-holders (in time, money and hassle) may deter some from continuing.
Smaller rural businesses — shooting providers, estates, guides, training organisations — may suffer from fewer participants, fewer newcomers, membership declines.
This may disproportionately hit rural communities which have fewer alternative industries, and where the “level-up” agenda pledges support for rural growth.
Shotgun ownership is embedded in British rural life: from gamekeepers to clay-shooting clubs, from pest control to countryside recreation. If the burden becomes heavier:
Casual or recreational shooters may drop out.
Estates may reduce shooting days or membership offerings if certification hurdles discourage participation.
A generational handover may be broken if young people see the process as too complex or costly.
The sense of community built around shooting, conservation and rural land-management may weaken.
The government frames this consultation as part of public-safety initiatives: for example the statutory guidance for police was recently strengthened to require two referees for shotgun certificate applications and greater involvement of household members/partners in suitability checks.
Licensed firearms and licensed shotguns are already subject to one of the strictest systems in the world.
The consultation documentation acknowledges the issue is often not about the law itself but about the application of licensing and the capacity of police units.
There is little disclosed that moving all shotguns under Section 1 style licence would demonstrably improve public safety in proportion to the disruption it would cause — especially when many incidents involve illegally held firearms or other weapons.
The convergence could bring a number of risks which may not have been fully scoped:
The administrative burden on police licensing units may lead to slower processing, backlog, increased appeals, more queries from applicants.
Cost increases may be passed to certificate-holders (application fees, security requirements) or absorbed by retailers.
A reduction in new entrants into shooting sports (especially younger, casual or cost-sensitive participants).
Shrinking membership for shooting clubs or grounds, reducing economies of scale, increasing costs per participant.
Loss of rural employment (dealers, instructors, estate staff, guides) and ancillary services (accommodation, catering, training).
For rural land-management (pest control, gamekeeping) the deeper certification regime may deter or delay essential operations: this has knock-on ecological, agricultural and conservation impacts.
A possible shift of some shooters into unregulated or grey-market practices if official access becomes too rigid — paradoxically undermining the regulatory objective.
The consultation phase is critical. Stakeholders (dealers, clubs, estates, individual shooters) must engage: submit evidence, raise concerns, show the impact on trade, countryside economy and culture. As one shooting-trade body puts it: “If our industry remains silent, we risk losing not only business, but an important part of our heritage, community and way of life.”
The open consultation has already generated tens of thousands of responses. For example, the Home Office response summarises that 91,385 responses were received.
Whether the government proposes a full move of shotguns into Section 1 or partial alignment (e.g., just requiring more referees, security checks, good reason requirements).
Whether the “good reason” test for each firearm is extended to shotguns (currently Section 2 licence allows multiple shotguns on one certificate and does not require a good reason for each one).
Whether the fee structure or security/ storage requirements are changed for shotgun certificate-holders.
What transitional arrangements are proposed (existing certificate-holders, grandfathering) — this will matter for trade and membership retention.
What modelling is done on licensing unit capacity, cost to the trade, effects on rural economy and conservation.
How the government balances public safety with the legitimate interests of lawful owners, trade, rural business and heritage.
The proposed convergence of Section 2 shotguns into the more onerous Section 1-style regime may appear on the surface as a straightforward “safety” upgrade. But for the gun-trade, the countryside industry and rural communities, it represents a disruptive shift with the potential to shrink participation, increase costs, slow licence processing and undermine rural livelihoods and heritage. While public safety must always remain the priority, policy should be proportionate, evidence-based and mindful of unintended consequences.
As the consultation progresses, now is the moment for the trade, shooters, rural businesses and land-managers to make their voices heard — clearly and loudly.
Must read: