Refusal to renew vermin control s1 sgc

[Jeff8861]

Section one shotguns authorised for vermin control now appears to being phased out. However they are still being authorised for the practical shooting aspect.
So what is happening.
The law itself hasn’t fundamentally changed, but the way police are applying it absolutely. That’s what’s catching a lot of people out right now.
Here’s what’s really going on
The shift from “entitlement” to risk-based discretion
Even before 2025, firearms licensing was always discretionary — police must be satisfied you are:
“fit to be entrusted” good reason to possess and not a danger to public safety
But the latest Home Office guidance (Aug 2025) pushes forces to take a much more cautious, risk-averse approach. Some forces have been doing this for years interpretation the legislation to suit their agenda. When you complain against you get the same old quote "we are more risk overt than others'.
In practice, that means:
If your reason (e.g. vermin control) isn’t strongly evidenced or still required they can refuse
If they think another method or firearm could suffice they may not renew
It’s less about “you’ve always had it” and more:
“Do you still clearly need this specific firearm right now?” What the difference from loading a section 2 a couple of times or doing one reload with a section 1
Much stricter checks this is the big one
The 2025 guidance tightened how police assess suitability:
2 referees now required (not 1)
GP medical checks & markers mandatory
Domestic situation checks (partners/household)
Social media checks for risk indicators
Greater weight on any concerns about behaviour, honesty, or stability
So even if nothing obvious has changed, the level of scrutiny has.
“Good reason” is being interpreted tighter (vermin control hit hardest)
Vermin control is still a valid reason — no change in law.
But forces are increasingly asking:
Do you still have land permission?
Is the pest problem ongoing and evidenced?
Could it be done with:
a different firearm?
a shotgun instead of Section 1?
Are you actually actively using it, or just holding it?
If they think the need is marginal, they’re more willing to refuse.
Political pressure after Plymouth (this matters)
After the Plymouth shootings (2021), there’s been sustained pressure to tighten licensing.
Government is actively considering aligning shotgun and firearm rules
House of Commons Library
Guidance now emphasises public safety over convenience
Even minor concerns are taken more seriously
Forces are basically thinking:
“If we renew this and something happens, we’re accountable.”
Inconsistency between police forces
This is a huge frustration nationally.
43 different licensing authorities
Each interprets guidance slightly differently
Shooting organisations warn of “inconsistency and overreach”
So one force may renew routinely… another refuses on the same facts.
So why are people losing renewals?
In real terms, it’s usually one (or a mix) of:
“Good reason” not strong enough anymore
Not enough evidence of active vermin control
Police think another gun/setup would do
Admin issues (referees, GP delays)
Low-level concerns now being treated more seriously
General shift toward risk avoidance
Its clear there has been a quiet tightening, not a new law.
But stricter guidance + more cautious policing = more refusals.
The massive elephant in the room is clear YOU CAN POSSES SECT 1 FOR SHOOTING PLATES IN A QUARRY BUT NOT FOR CONTROLLING VERMIN. Public safety is the driver as usual but this doesnt work in this case. For example i have a section 1 I have a mental episode we have a mass shooting.
I dont have sect 1 but section 2 I have an episode mass shooting but have to re load still the same amount of deaths.
I dont have sect 2 or section 1 sgc but I have fac, 308 ten round mag. Again have an episode.
So either ban sect 1 shotguns and ban fac magazines. So as usual massive discrepancy in the guidance.
What happens when its you that gets refused. Challenge this correctly provide as much evidence as possible strengthen your good reason. Dont put well ive always had one. Next step appeal I cant locate anyone putting the refusal through the court would be interesting to hear from a certificate holder than has expirenced this.
Apologies for the length of this but lots to cover. In a nutshell if you require the vermin aspect go for it but be honest can you get by with a section 2.

 

[Malxwal]

In brief, it's all cascading from one incident, and management looking for numbers on paper as if it represents a meaningful impact on the likelihood of a similar incident in the future. Knee jerk nonsense.

 

[WalkedUp]

What was the incident?

 

[Malxwal]

2021 Plymouth inquiry.

 

[nf-fuse]

2021 Plymouth inquiry.

Yeah the police at fault

 

[Malxwal]

Yeah the police at fault

Not quite sure it's a simple dig at "the Police", more at their political masters.

 

[pumbaa]

I got a Section 1 shotgun a few years back for shooting squirrels in the woodland on our farm, sensible reason (I thought) you need more that 3 shots, if you fire one into a dray and 3 or more squirrels run out 3 shots will not suffice.

Last year I submitted for a change as the trigger broke and It was cheaper to buy a second hand one at my local shop had that to fix, I resubmitted with the same reasoning.

The FAO contacted me and said that this reason was not acceptable, so I said I also use it for rats when again 3 shots sometimes isn't enough. He said again, no good.

So I asked him what I can site as my reason and he said they want to hear that I will be using it to protect my high value crops from bird damage, I have done a fair bit of pigeon and corvid shooting in my time and never have I felt under gunned with 3 shots.

But hey, they know best right...

 

[andyk]

Thanks for starting the thread, an interesting read of something that isn’t just opinion.

I don’t necessarily expect you to confirm/respond to this but the implication of the approach being taken appears to be that forces such as West Mercia are taking a calculated risk of losing appeals to remove the risk that someone they authorised to have a s1 shotgun does something stupid. But, behind closed doors, they’d recognise that an appeal against refusal would succeed if the applicant could show that they could control avian vermin more effectively if they have a shotgun capable of firing more than 3 shots in succession.

As things stand, any attempt to ‘gold plate’ good reason for s1 shotguns on the basis they are particularly dangerous would seem doomed to fail. As you say, they can still be had for steel targets, and for that purpose the applicant would likely be granted slugs too - not so for avian vermin.

The test for good reason is easy enough to understand and I would think forces trying to reengineer it towards need are, again, risking losing on appeal. The requirement is a justification, not a need. Saying ‘you could use this other (less effective) gun’ is tantamount to equating good reason to need, which the Courts have been clear is not correct.

Cases also show that the application shouldn’t be approached from the perspective of a ‘potential objector’. Enhanced scrutiny may be acceptable, but some of what you’re discussing may stray into that territory.

Unfortunately (as I’ve always been well treated by FLDs and want to give them the benefit of the doubt) some of what you’re saying does look like overreach. Given the case law is clear on how good reason is to be applied, and the HO guidance permits s1 shotguns for avian vermin, any force that is saying it will not grant at all/unless absolute need can be shown is engaging in overreach - it’s making decisions based on what it wishes the law to be and not just being risk averse.

 

[Greenmist]

Political pressure after Plymouth (this matters)
After the Plymouth shootings (2021), there’s been sustained pressure to tighten licensing.


but be honest can you get by with a section 2.

Wasn't plymouth carried out with a sect 2 shotgun? And another example of police failings, much like Hungerford and Dunblane, perhaps its the police that need to be honest, I know you're involved with firearms licensing so I'll ask you, are the public safer now than they were prior to every kneejerk reaction since the 80's?

 

[Jeff8861]

Thanks for starting the thread, an interesting read of something that isn’t just opinion.

I don’t necessarily expect you to confirm/respond to this but the implication of the approach being taken appears to be that forces such as West Mercia are taking a calculated risk of losing appeals to remove the risk that someone they authorised to have a s1 shotgun does something stupid. But, behind closed doors, they’d recognise that an appeal against refusal would succeed if the applicant could show that they could control avian vermin more effectively if they have a shotgun capable of firing more than 3 shots in succession.

As things stand, any attempt to ‘gold plate’ good reason for s1 shotguns on the basis they are particularly dangerous would seem doomed to fail. As you say, they can still be had for steel targets, and for that purpose the applicant would likely be granted slugs too - not so for avian vermin.

The test for good reason is easy enough to understand and I would think forces trying to reengineer it towards need are, again, risking losing on appeal. The requirement is a justification, not a need. Saying ‘you could use this other (less effective) gun’ is tantamount to equating good reason to need, which the Courts have been clear is not correct.

Cases also show that the application shouldn’t be approached from the perspective of a ‘potential objector’. Enhanced scrutiny may be acceptable, but some of what you’re discussing may stray into that territory.

Unfortunately (as I’ve always been well treated by FLDs and want to give them the benefit of the doubt) some of what you’re saying does look like overreach. Given the case law is clear on how good reason is to be applied, and the HO guidance permits s1 shotguns for avian vermin, any force that is saying it will not grant at all/unless absolute need can be shown is engaging in overreach - it’s making decisions based on what it wishes the law to be and not just being risk averse.

It's the same old story of fld managers interpretation of the legislation. Some obviously have an agenda and fit it to suit their believes and narratives. They use public safety as the excuse but when they authorise steel plates but not quarry this ethos collapses. I suspect the same would take place in the courts during the appeal. In addition prior to any court case the force solicitors will scrutinise all the evidence the legislation and the actions/decision making from the fld. If there is a flaw in any of this the appeal will not procede. Often its a game of brinkmamship (we will refuse lets hope they dont appeal).

 

[Jeff8861]

Wasn't plymouth carried out with a sect 2 shotgun? And another example of police failings, much like Hungerford and Dunblane, perhaps its the police that need to be honest, I know you're involved with firearms licensing so I'll ask you, are the public safer now than they were prior to every kneejerk reaction since the 80's?

It was and yes the deaths in Plymouth could have been avoided. The offender should not have been given his guns back following a prior assault. This was purely down to a failing fld and yes one perso makes the decisions. Are we any safer NO do politicians and decision makers feel better YES. But as usual the majority of law abiding certificate holders pay the price. You can not stop anyone hell bent on causing chaos wether thats with a knife a car an ied or noxious substance. In regards to this topic someone who has issues who holds a sgc fac can cause suffering regardless of the instrument. So if we are banning 8 shots then ban them for everything ban mags all rifles floor plate with one round. Reduce the amount of ammunition you are allowed to hold. That is what they are saying in essence.

 

[nf-fuse]

It was and yes the deaths in Plymouth could have been avoided. The offender should not have been given his guns back following a prior assault. This was purely down to a failing fld and yes one perso makes the decisions. Are we any safer NO do politicians and decision makers feel better YES. But as usual the majority of law abiding certificate holders pay the price. You can not stop anyone hell bent on causing chaos wether thats with a knife a car an ied or noxious substance. In regards to this topic someone who has issues who holds a sgc fac can cause suffering regardless of the instrument. So if we are banning 8 shots then ban them for everything ban mags all rifles floor plate with one round. Reduce the amount of ammunition you are allowed to hold. That is what they are saying in essence.

Yeah and he used section 2 as well.

 

[andyk]

I got a Section 1 shotgun a few years back for shooting squirrels in the woodland on our farm, sensible reason (I thought) you need more that 3 shots, if you fire one into a dray and 3 or more squirrels run out 3 shots will not suffice.

Last year I submitted for a change as the trigger broke and It was cheaper to buy a second hand one at my local shop had that to fix, I resubmitted with the same reasoning.

The FAO contacted me and said that this reason was not acceptable, so I said I also use it for rats when again 3 shots sometimes isn't enough. He said again, no good.

So I asked him what I can site as my reason and he said they want to hear that I will be using it to protect my high value crops from bird damage, I have done a fair bit of pigeon and corvid shooting in my time and never have I felt under gunned with 3 shots.

But hey, they know best right...

Trouble you have there is that the updated HO guidance says the only good reason for a s1 (for quarry) is avian vermin. Yes, you can have AOLQ to let you shoot rabbits, squirrels etc once you have it but the stated reason needs to be avian.

 

[andyk]

It's the same old story of fld managers interpretation of the legislation. Some obviously have an agenda and fit it to suit their believes and narratives. They use public safety as the excuse but when they authorise steel plates but not quarry this ethos collapses. I suspect the same would take place in the courts during the appeal. In addition prior to any court case the force solicitors will scrutinise all the evidence the legislation and the actions/decision making from the fld. If there is a flaw in any of this the appeal will not procede. Often its a game of brinkmamship (we will refuse lets hope they dont appeal).

Regrettably that adds to the overreach/bad faith view, an FLM hoping to ‘get away’ with a plainly wrong approach isn’t doing his/her job and is veering into activism.

Again, I’ve never had a problem but my holding is distinctly ‘vanilla’ bolt actions, so never had cause to butt heads over something they aren’t keen to issue.

I see this as something of a poison chalice for the orgs. On one hand, it’s fertile ground for a challenge and would yield short term success. Long term though, I’m not so sure. If the HO gets wind of a ‘war’ between FLDs and shooting orgs over s1 shotguns, and one which the FLD are losing, I can see they may change the guidance (or even law) to support the FLD position. A process that would not only kill off s1 shotguns entirely but would also risk collateral damage if other types of s1 are reviewed.

Out of interest, when you say they’re tightening up on vermin as a good reason is that primarily for s1 shotguns or does it extend to rimfire/small CF?

 

[Chris Richardson]

Let’s just roll over like we normally do what’s the worst that can happen right ?

 

[andyk]

Let’s just roll over like we normally do what’s the worst that can happen right ?

Sounds great to say but what do you suggest?

Note - my post above isn’t necessarily saying this should go unchallenged, just that some thought should be given to what the FLD/HO will do in 2 or 3 moves time.

 

[Jeff8861]

Regrettably that adds to the overreach/bad faith view, an FLM hoping to ‘get away’ with a plainly wrong approach isn’t doing his/her job and is veering into activism.

Again, I’ve never had a problem but my holding is distinctly ‘vanilla’ bolt actions, so never had cause to butt heads over something they aren’t keen to issue.

I see this as something of a poison chalice for the orgs. On one hand, it’s fertile ground for a challenge and would yield short term success. Long term though, I’m not so sure. If the HO gets wind of a ‘war’ between FLDs and shooting orgs over s1 shotguns, and one which the FLD are losing, I can see they may change the guidance (or even law) to support the FLD position. A process that would not only kill off s1 shotguns entirely but would also risk collateral damage if other types of s1 are reviewed.

Out of interest, when you say they’re tightening up on vermin as a good reason is that primarily for s1 shotguns or does it extend to rimfire/small CF?

Section 1 shotguns only

 

[25 Sharps]

Section one shotguns authorised for vermin control now appears to being phased out. However they are still being authorised for the practical shooting aspect.
So what is happening.
The law itself hasn’t fundamentally changed, but the way police are applying it absolutely. That’s what’s catching a lot of people out right now.
Here’s what’s really going on
The shift from “entitlement” to risk-based discretion
Even before 2025, firearms licensing was always discretionary — police must be satisfied you are:
“fit to be entrusted” good reason to possess and not a danger to public safety
But the latest Home Office guidance (Aug 2025) pushes forces to take a much more cautious, risk-averse approach. Some forces have been doing this for years interpretation the legislation to suit their agenda. When you complain against you get the same old quote "we are more risk overt than others'.
In practice, that means:
If your reason (e.g. vermin control) isn’t strongly evidenced or still required they can refuse
If they think another method or firearm could suffice they may not renew
It’s less about “you’ve always had it” and more:
“Do you still clearly need this specific firearm right now?” What the difference from loading a section 2 a couple of times or doing one reload with a section 1
Much stricter checks this is the big one
The 2025 guidance tightened how police assess suitability:
2 referees now required (not 1)
GP medical checks & markers mandatory
Domestic situation checks (partners/household)
Social media checks for risk indicators
Greater weight on any concerns about behaviour, honesty, or stability
So even if nothing obvious has changed, the level of scrutiny has.
“Good reason” is being interpreted tighter (vermin control hit hardest)
Vermin control is still a valid reason — no change in law.
But forces are increasingly asking:
Do you still have land permission?
Is the pest problem ongoing and evidenced?
Could it be done with:
a different firearm?
a shotgun instead of Section 1?
Are you actually actively using it, or just holding it?
If they think the need is marginal, they’re more willing to refuse.
Political pressure after Plymouth (this matters)
After the Plymouth shootings (2021), there’s been sustained pressure to tighten licensing.
Government is actively considering aligning shotgun and firearm rules
House of Commons Library
Guidance now emphasises public safety over convenience
Even minor concerns are taken more seriously
Forces are basically thinking:
“If we renew this and something happens, we’re accountable.”
Inconsistency between police forces
This is a huge frustration nationally.
43 different licensing authorities
Each interprets guidance slightly differently
Shooting organisations warn of “inconsistency and overreach”
So one force may renew routinely… another refuses on the same facts.
So why are people losing renewals?
In real terms, it’s usually one (or a mix) of:
“Good reason” not strong enough anymore
Not enough evidence of active vermin control
Police think another gun/setup would do
Admin issues (referees, GP delays)
Low-level concerns now being treated more seriously
General shift toward risk avoidance
Its clear there has been a quiet tightening, not a new law.
But stricter guidance + more cautious policing = more refusals.
The massive elephant in the room is clear YOU CAN POSSES SECT 1 FOR SHOOTING PLATES IN A QUARRY BUT NOT FOR CONTROLLING VERMIN. Public safety is the driver as usual but this doesnt work in this case. For example i have a section 1 I have a mental episode we have a mass shooting.
I dont have sect 1 but section 2 I have an episode mass shooting but have to re load still the same amount of deaths.
I dont have sect 2 or section 1 sgc but I have fac, 308 ten round mag. Again have an episode.
So either ban sect 1 shotguns and ban fac magazines. So as usual massive discrepancy in the guidance.
What happens when its you that gets refused. Challenge this correctly provide as much evidence as possible strengthen your good reason. Dont put well ive always had one. Next step appeal I cant locate anyone putting the refusal through the court would be interesting to hear from a certificate holder than has expirenced this.
Apologies for the length of this but lots to cover. In a nutshell if you require the vermin aspect go for it but be honest can you get by with a section 2.

Thanks for explaining the reasoning behind it, by the sound of it there is no blanket ban on live quarry shooting as some on here are stating (@Scottb123). Provided your good reason is genuine then they should still be authorised for vermin.

Just one thing though, where does need come into it? Good reason is something, need is another, if good reason was purely based on need then most target shooters would not be able to display good reason. Need doesn’t come into the legislation and that is probably for good reason (see what I did there )

 

[Jeff8861]

Thanks for explaining the reasoning behind it, by the sound of it there is no blanket ban on live quarry shooting as some on here are stating (@Scottb123). Provided your good reason is genuine then they should still be authorised for vermin.

Just one thing though, where does need come into it? Good reason is something, need is another, if good reason was purely based on need then most target shooters would not be able to display good reason. Need doesn’t come into the legislation and that is probably for good reason (see what I did there )

Very good lol.

 

[Scottb123]

Thanks for explaining the reasoning behind it, by the sound of it there is no blanket ban on live quarry shooting as some on here are stating (@Scottb123). Provided your good reason is genuine then they should still be authorised for vermin.

Just one thing though, where does need come into it? Good reason is something, need is another, if good reason was purely based on need then most target shooters would not be able to display good reason. Need doesn’t come into the legislation and that is probably for good reason (see what I did there )

I never stated jack I just put on here my personal experience when your being told they are not issuing them for Vermin and atleast 10 people local have had theirs removed upon renewals even two rfds I know have lost them for that very reason I’ve never been grilled so much over one subject on here as I previously stated it was my variation my choice and nobody else’s I had good reason and need but what is the point of pursuing something when possibly with the way it seems to be going in a few month or years nobody will have them for vermin control it’s the last I’ll say on the subject wish I never bothered inputting