Well the positive I get from that reply is "a number of constituents have written to me with similar concerns"
S1 and S2 merge example letter
- Thread starter User00056
- Start date
HarryK2k
New Member
Wrote to my MP yesterday!As we all know, the proposals to merge S1 and S2 firearms is, quite frankly, a stupid idea. So, rather than beat our breasts and mutter about it, why not launch an orchestrated campaign to lobby our MPs on a national level?
I've just sent this off to my local MP (Dave Doogan), and offer it here in the hope that a copy and paste (and adjustment here and there as you see fit) might spur a huge input of emails to our MPs that would adequately express our feelings regarding this.#
And please feel free to share it with supportive friends and family?
Dear [insert MPs name here],
I am writing as a constituent to express my strong opposition to any proposal to merge Section 1 and Section 2 firearm regulations. Such a change would not improve public safety, and in many respects would undermine the clarity, proportionality, and effectiveness of the current licensing framework.
As I'm sure you know, the existing distinction between Section 1 and Section 2 firearms is not arbitrary. It reflects meaningful differences in design, function, and risk profile. Section 2 shotguns, by definition, are limited‑capacity, manually operated firearms that have been used safely for decades by farmers, gamekeepers, clay shooters, and other lawful certificate holders. Their regulation is intentionally streamlined because their characteristics do not present the same potential for injury or misuse as Section 1 firearms.
Merging the two systems would create several problems:
• It would impose unnecessary administrative burdens Police firearms licensing departments are already under significant strain, with many UK forces currently being unable to meet stated timelines for renewals and variations, and many actually refusing to take on new applications. Requiring them to process every shotgun under Section 1 criteria would increase workload without delivering any measurable benefit to public safety. In fact, it risks slowing down essential licensing work, including renewals and checks that genuinely matter.
• It would penalise responsible certificate holders The current system has an excellent safety record. Law‑abiding shotgun owners—many of whom rely on their firearms for work, pest control, or sporting activities—would face more complex and time‑consuming requirements despite presenting no increased risk.
• It would not address the causes of firearm‑related crime Criminal misuse of firearms overwhelmingly involves illegally held weapons, not legally owned shotguns. Tightening regulations on compliant certificate holders does nothing to tackle the illicit market, organised crime, or the importation of illegal firearms.
• It would remove a clear and functional legal distinction The two‑tier system is well understood by police, certificate holders, and the courts. Replacing it with a single category would blur important differences and create confusion rather than clarity.
If the goal is to improve public safety, the most effective approach is to invest in licensing departments, ensure consistent national standards, and focus enforcement on illegal firearms—not to burden those who already comply with stringent rules.
I therefore urge you to oppose any move to merge Section 1 and Section 2 regulations and to advocate instead for evidence‑based reforms that strengthen, rather than complicate, the existing system.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I would welcome your views on this matter and look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely
[Your Name]
I received a reply from my MP Lee Barron yesterday.
Unfortunately it was a reply to an email I sent 10/11 months ago about the delays in licensing and the rise in cost of the licence fees.
He did mention I could contact him and he would be happy to chase up my licensing dept if I had any issues! Good to know, I may send an email now about my renewal in 4 years time. That may give him enough time to see it and do something!
Unfortunately it was a reply to an email I sent 10/11 months ago about the delays in licensing and the rise in cost of the licence fees.
He did mention I could contact him and he would be happy to chase up my licensing dept if I had any issues! Good to know, I may send an email now about my renewal in 4 years time. That may give him enough time to see it and do something!
I got a response from my mp in the end (copied below).
It seems that Plaid are of the opinion that the proposed merger is misguided, and they are hopeful that the government will change course.
Diolch yn fawr iawn am gysylltu gyda mi ac am rhannu eich gofid parthed yr ymgynghoriad o gyfuno trwyddedi drylliau gydag arfau eraill. Rydw i’n ymddiheuro’n fawr am yr oedi cyn ymateb eich ebost.
Fel rhywun sydd yn cynrychioli etholaeth wledig, rwyf yn gwbl ymwybodol o rol drylliau ym mywyd gwledig, yn cynnwys ffermio a busnesau lleol. Hoffwn hefyd ddatgan bod diogelu’r cyhoedd a’n cymunedau yn hollbwysig ac yn flaenoriaeth.
O ran y ddadl yn Westminster Hall diwedd mis Chwefror, lle nad oedd unrhyw newidiadau yn cael eu dyfarnu, yn anffodus, oherwydd ymrwymiadau seneddol, nid oeddwn yn gallu mynychu. Fodd bynnag, mynychodd fy nghyd-aelod, Ben Lake AS dros Ceredigion-Preseli, a siaradodd ar ran Plaid Cymru; rwyf yn rhannu gyda chi yr hyn yr oedd ganddo i ddweud ac rwyf yn cytuno’n llwyr gyda’i safbwynt:
‘Rwyf yn ddiolchgar iawn o’r cynnig i fynychu’r ddadl hwn. Cefais fy synnu ar yr ochr orau yn dilyn cyfraniadau aelodau o’r Blaid Lafur i’r ddadl: mae’n edrych fel bod undod llwyr ymysg yr aelodau bod cynigion y Llywodraeth wedi’u camarwain, er eu bod wedi’u bwriadu’n dda. Rwyf yn obeithiol y bydd y Llywodraeth yn gwyrdroi.’
Gallwch weld yr hyn oedd gan Ben i ddweud a’r ddadl gyfan yma.
Hoffwn adleisio y byddaf yn gwneud popeth y gallaf i sicrhau nad yw’r newidiadau hyn yn dod i rym.
It seems that Plaid are of the opinion that the proposed merger is misguided, and they are hopeful that the government will change course.
Diolch yn fawr iawn am gysylltu gyda mi ac am rhannu eich gofid parthed yr ymgynghoriad o gyfuno trwyddedi drylliau gydag arfau eraill. Rydw i’n ymddiheuro’n fawr am yr oedi cyn ymateb eich ebost.
Fel rhywun sydd yn cynrychioli etholaeth wledig, rwyf yn gwbl ymwybodol o rol drylliau ym mywyd gwledig, yn cynnwys ffermio a busnesau lleol. Hoffwn hefyd ddatgan bod diogelu’r cyhoedd a’n cymunedau yn hollbwysig ac yn flaenoriaeth.
O ran y ddadl yn Westminster Hall diwedd mis Chwefror, lle nad oedd unrhyw newidiadau yn cael eu dyfarnu, yn anffodus, oherwydd ymrwymiadau seneddol, nid oeddwn yn gallu mynychu. Fodd bynnag, mynychodd fy nghyd-aelod, Ben Lake AS dros Ceredigion-Preseli, a siaradodd ar ran Plaid Cymru; rwyf yn rhannu gyda chi yr hyn yr oedd ganddo i ddweud ac rwyf yn cytuno’n llwyr gyda’i safbwynt:
‘Rwyf yn ddiolchgar iawn o’r cynnig i fynychu’r ddadl hwn. Cefais fy synnu ar yr ochr orau yn dilyn cyfraniadau aelodau o’r Blaid Lafur i’r ddadl: mae’n edrych fel bod undod llwyr ymysg yr aelodau bod cynigion y Llywodraeth wedi’u camarwain, er eu bod wedi’u bwriadu’n dda. Rwyf yn obeithiol y bydd y Llywodraeth yn gwyrdroi.’
Gallwch weld yr hyn oedd gan Ben i ddweud a’r ddadl gyfan yma.
Hoffwn adleisio y byddaf yn gwneud popeth y gallaf i sicrhau nad yw’r newidiadau hyn yn dod i rym.
Similar threads
