Having worked in government bureaucracy myself before retiring (for my sins), while I have no doubts that there is an element of dislike for and contempt held for those who possess firearms, it's important also to not discount general incompetence.
One of the great flaws of the Civil Service, which the Civil Service trumpets as a strength, is the extent to which staff are fairly regularly shifted around departments, often without knowing the first thing about the topic they've landed in. That is why you have heads of department turning up at Select Committees, not having a clue what they're talking about, being briefed by junior staff who also appear lacking, who then go back to their offices write or rewrite, or sign off, weak, ineffective or flawed legislation or policy.
I've seen it first hand. I've seen suggestions or even considered drafts put forward by experienced professionals, dismissed or altered by those with considerably less experience, and a right mess made of it as a result. I'm not sure how the Home Office is structured as it wasn't that body I worked for, but it wouldn't surprise me if plain ignorance, a lack of experience and/or a lack of firsthand knowledge of the legislation in operation is also responsible for some of the ineffective, atriciously worded, lacking in any commonsense whatsoever processes and procedures we all have to deal with.