In the current political climate making predictions is a dangerous business, but by the beginning of 2024 it was becoming inevitable that Labour would win that year’s General Election and our intelligence was that there was a powerful lobby in the party to crack down on the ownership of shotguns. Despite a level of complacency amongst some in the shooting world about Labour’s approach to shooting, we knew that activists within the party had settled on a policy of ‘aligning’ shotguns with Section 1 firearms. 

In early 2025, when the new government responded to a consultation carried out by the previous administration, it was therefore no surprise to us that Ministers took the view “that shotguns are no less lethal than other firearms that are controlled under Section 1” and that it would be consulting again on “aligning the controls on shotguns with other firearms”. There seemed to be no understanding that a) the policy was based on the false premise that shotguns are provably more lethal than Section 1 firearms and b) that licensing shotguns as Section 1 firearms would be disastrous for the rural economy and collapse an already creaking firearms licensing system.

The Alliance was prepared for the political battle. Not only did we ensure that ministers were left in no doubt of the scale of opposition to their plans through the media and a lobby of MPs, but we also promoted an alternative proposal: to overhaul the outdated and dangerously inconsistent firearms licensing system by replacing the 43 existing licensing bodies with one centralised and effective national licensing authority.

The government has already faltered in the face of this campaign and the promised consultation did not appear as originally promised last year. On Monday (23 February), MPs also had an early opportunity to discuss the issue as the result of a petition supported by over 120,000 people.

The debate exposed just how fragile the government’s case for aligning shotgun licensing with Section 1 firearms is. What was originally billed as a necessary action to protect public safety found little support amongst MPs of any party. The Minister mounted little more than an apologetic defence of a policy which seems to command little support in the House of Commons and even less among those who understand firearms licensing on the ground.

MPs from every corner of the House – Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP, Plaid Cymru, DUP and other – rose to make the same fundamental point: aligning shotgun licensing with Section 1 would damage legitimate rural activities while doing nothing to make the public safer. Not one Member fully supported alignment.

Summing up for the government, Policing and Crime Minister Sarah Jones sounded markedly more enthusiastic about the Alliance’s proposal for a dedicated national licensing body than she was for the policy announced by her predecessor. On alignment her language was hesitant. We were told that everything from “doing nothing” to full merger remains on the table and that the government would now consult “in due course”. That lack of conviction speaks volumes. When a minister is committed to a policy they say so plainly. When they are not they resort to dealing with it “in due course”.

Perhaps the most telling intervention came from Lizzi Collinge, the Labour MP for Morecombe and Lunesdale, who acknowledged that whilst her instincts favour tighter gun control, any change must deliver a “meaningful” safety benefit and be proportionate. That concession goes to the heart of the Alliance’s position. We have never argued against changes that would increase public safety - quite the opposite - but no credible evidence has been produced to show that aligning shotgun licensing would prevent crime or save lives.

The debate marked real progress and, to blow our own trumpet for a moment, shows the effectiveness of the Alliance’s informed and effective campaigning. It is not, however, the end of the story and the government still has the numbers to force alignment through if it chooses to ignore evidence and opinion. That is why we will continue to press the case through the consultation and beyond – and will need your support in doing so.