Firearms Licensing

Rupert Lowe Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I should start by saying that I am a shooter and a fisherman, as the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) referred to, and an active farmer—I do all those things.

I am entirely opposed to this latest urban metropolitan attack on rural Britain. Merging licences would create yet more delays, more cost and more bureaucracy. Responsible gun owners are not the enemy. Let us be absolutely clear who we are talking about. We are talking about farmers, gamekeepers, sportsmen and women, and rural families. They are people who follow the law to the letter, store their firearms safely, and undergo background checks, police scrutiny and ongoing oversight. These are not criminals; they are among the most law-abiding people in Britain.

Keeping section 1 and section 2 licensing separate recognises an important distinction in both law and practice. These systems have existed for decades and they work. They provide proper oversight while allowing legitimate, responsible ownership. Merging the two systems would not target criminals, because criminals, by definition, do not apply for licences. They do not fill out forms. They do not submit to background checks. They do not follow the law. They do what they want. They do not care about what we say in this place.

[Lizzi Collinge]

I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but does he accept that there have been instances where firearms have been lawfully obtained by people without a previous criminal record who have nevertheless used them to commit harm, particularly to themselves or someone very close to them?

[Rupert Lowe]

Of course some incidents have happened, but then incidents have happened with baseball bats and with other instruments that have not been banned and will not be banned. The hon. Lady makes a valid point, but the issue needs to be looked at very carefully, because I think there are less incidents of the kind she described than she might think.

Merging licences would create more bureaucracy, as I have said, as well as more delay, more cost and more pressure on police licensing units, which are already struggling to process applications on time while the police prioritise prosecuting people for social media posts. Trust me—I understand this more than most. I had my guns seized in a late-night armed police raid following the Reform party’s false allegations about me. It took me months to get them back—a process based on subjectivity, which is dangerous. Despite Reform’s best efforts, I remain both a shotgun and a firearm licence holder, and a gun owner.

Further delays would have real consequences for rural livelihoods, and for a long and respected British tradition that contributes to conservation, employment and the rural economy. Public safety is not improved by targeting those who already comply fully with the law; it is improved by focusing on illegal weapons, organised crime and those who present a genuine risk.

Responsible firearm owners are not the problem. They are citizens who follow the rules, respect the law and deserve to be treated accordingly. We should not burden them with unnecessary bureaucracy that achieves nothing except making their lives harder. I urge the Government to rethink these plans and to finally start treating responsible gun owners with some respect. Further gratuitous conflict between the urban and countryside communities is an undesirable development when there is no justification to puerile legislation that is based on ideology, not common sense. Criminality with legally registered shotguns and firearms is not the issue; a malign civil service agenda is.