UK MPs Reject Proposals to Merge Shotgun and Rifle Licensing Regimes

MPs Unanimously Reject Licensing Merger

United Kingdom Members of Parliament have decisively rejected proposals aimed at merging the licensing regimes for shotguns and rifles. The cross-party consensus against the changes emerged during a Westminster Hall debate held on February 23, 2026, which was prompted by a public petition garnering over 120,000 signatures.

During the debate, no Member of Parliament spoke in favour of combining the Section 2 (shotgun) and Section 1 (firearm) licensing systems. This outcome signals a clear parliamentary stance against the proposed regulatory shift, which had been a subject of considerable concern among shooting communities and rural stakeholders.

Background to the Proposed Changes

The Home Office had previously indicated an intention to launch a public consultation on strengthening licensing controls for shotguns, with the aim of bringing them more in line with controls on other firearms. This consideration followed recommendations made after incidents such as the fatal shootings in Keyham, Plymouth, in August 2021, where legally held shotguns were used. The government's position was that shotguns are 'no less lethal' than other firearms and that a review of differing controls was warranted in the interest of public safety.

Currently, the UK operates distinct licensing systems: a Shotgun Certificate (SGC) for shotguns and a Firearm Certificate (FAC) for rifles and other firearms. While both require rigorous police checks, interviews, and security inspections, the process for obtaining a shotgun certificate has historically been considered simpler. Recent changes in August 2025 had already increased the number of referees required for shotgun applications from one to two, aligning them with other firearms, and strengthened guidance on domestic abuse checks.

Public and Parliamentary Opposition

The petition, which called for the separation of Section 1 and Section 2 regulations to be maintained, argued that a merger would 'create delays, higher costs, and bureaucracy without improving public safety.' Supporters of the petition, including organisations like the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) and the Countryside Alliance, contended that such changes would disproportionately affect law-abiding owners, the shooting industry, and rural communities.

MPs echoed these concerns during the debate, highlighting several key points:

• The proposed merger would not deliver any meaningful improvement to public safety.
• It would place further strain on already 'overstretched police firearms licensing departments.'
• The changes could have a significant negative impact on farmers, land managers, gamekeepers, and the wider rural economy, potentially costing jobs and livelihoods.
• Shotguns are already subject to substantial controls under existing legislation.

Several MPs pointed out that the issues highlighted by tragic events like the Plymouth shooting were more attributable to failures within police licensing departments rather than inherent flaws in the shotgun licensing rules themselves.

Implications of the Decision

The clear rejection by MPs indicates that the separate licensing regimes for shotguns and rifles are likely to remain in place for the foreseeable future. The parliamentary debate underscored a strong desire for any changes to firearms licensing to be evidence-based, proportionate, and targeted at genuine risks, rather than imposing additional burdens on responsible individuals and industries. This decision provides clarity for the shooting community and rural businesses that rely on shotguns for legitimate purposes.