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'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]
