IT IS TIME TO REFORM THE FIREARMS LEGISLATION
Abstract: With over thirty Acts of Parliament and related legislation, the matrix of rules pertaining to
firearms is now exceedingly complex, lacks coherence and clarity. In short, UK firearms legislation
is ripe for urgent, comprehensive, reform.
On the 21st July 2015, the Law Commission for England and Wales published a detailed
Scoping Paper1 with the two-fold aim of consulting on particular reforms that appear to be
urgently needed and to examine the case for more fundamental reform.2 The case for
reform is unanswerable.3 Statutory rules pertaining to firearms are spread across in excess
of 30 Acts of Parliament coupled with their related secondary legislation. In over one
hundred years, only two statutes have consolidated firearms legislation, namely, the
Firearms Acts of 1937 and 1968. But, what is required (it is submitted) is something more
– a single, carefully crafted code, which can be updated as occasion requires without
fundamentally altering its structure. The Law Commission found consensus with those with
whom it consulted that the law has caused particular difficulties in practice, namely, in its
failure to define the words “lethal”, “component part”, “antique”, its failure to impose a
legal obligation that deactivated firearms be certified as being such (to an approved
standard), and its failure to keep pace with technological developments in relation to
whether an imitation firearm is „readily convertible‟ into a live firearm.4
The problems arguably begin with the definition of a “firearm” as it appears in section 57(1)
of the Firearms Act 1968, which is not confined to a “lethal barrel weapon…from which any
shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged”,5 but which includes any prohibited weapon
(whether a lethal weapon or not),6 its component parts,7 and any accessory to any such
weapon that is designed (or adapted) to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the
weapon.8
The 1968 statutory definition of “firearm” is not limited to barrelled weapons from which
missiles can be discharged by way of an explosive propellant.9
1
Law Commission: Firearms Law: A Scoping Paper CP No 224: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2015/07/cp224_firearms.pdf
2
See also, R. Fortson QC, Firearms and the Law (July 2015, a paper commissioned by the Law Commission.
The views expressed therein are not to be taken as representing the views of the Commission):
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Firearms_and_the_Law_RFortson_090715.pdf
3
The legislation has been fairly described as “labyrinthine” by the Court of Appeal in R v L [2015] EWCA
Crim 5, and criticised by Professor Ashworth: Editorial, ‘Firearms and Justice’ *2013+ Crim. L.R. 447.
4
Law Commission: Firearms Law: A Scoping Paper CP No 224, para.1.16.
5
Section 57(1), FA 1968.
6
Section 57(1)(a), FA 1968.
7
Section 57(1)(b), FA 1968
8
Section 57(1)(c), FA 1968.
9
Consider Seamark v Prouse [1980] WLR. 698: an air-weapon may be a “firearm” (subject to lethality).
Rudi Fortson QC ©
1
Not every “prohibited weapon” (specified in s.5 of the 1968 Act) is barrelled from which a
projectile can be discharged, but includes “any weapon of whatever description designed or
adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing”. 10 Thus, the definition is
sufficiently wide to include „stun guns‟,11 pepper sprays, or devices that discharge CS gas.
The upshot is that although not every firearm is a “prohibited weapon”, every “prohibited
weapon” is a “firearm”.12
There are objects which are barrelled, from which a projectile can be discharged with lethal
force, but which are not popularly described as “firearms” (for example, some rocket
fireworks, parachute signalling flares, line throwing implements, and net-throwing guns). In
its 2015 Guide, the Home Office has usefully provided that “in the absence of a decision of
a court”, certain items (specified in the Guide) should not be regarded as firearms within
the definition of the 1968 Act.13 However, the courts have laid down their own test of a
weapon that is “lethal barrelled”, namely “whether it is a weapon which, however misused,
may cause injury from which death may result”.14 Unfortunately, the legal test does not sit
comfortably with the criteria by which forensic scientists assess the lethality of a weapon
(based, usually, on the muzzle kinetic energy of the discharged projectile).15 A related issue
– not straightforward – is whether the word “weapon” (as it appears in s.57(1) FA 1968)
adds anything to the definition of a “firearm”, and if so, what?
The relationship between firearms and imitation firearms is unduly complex. The latter fall
into four main categories (it is submitted): (i) imitations as defined in s.57(4), FA 1968; (ii) a
thing that is converted into a firearm (s.4(3), FA 1968); (iii) “readily convertible” imitation
firearms (s.1(1), FA 1982), and (iv) a “realistic imitation firearm” within the meaning of
section 38 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006.
Given that a “component part” is not defined by statute, it has been left to the courts to
offer guidance.16 But questions remain. For example, if a part is from a deactivated firearm,
or the thing in question is not “readily convertible” into a firearm, does that part or thing
constitute a “component part”? 17 The answer is not straightforward – but it ought to be.
Antique firearms that are sold, transferred, purchased, acquired or possessed as a “curiosity
or ornament” are exempted from the provisions of the FA 1968.18 The Act does not define
the three key words (italicised). The position is complicated by rules pertaining to firearms
of “historic interest”.
10
See section 5(1)(b), Firearms Act 1968.
11
Flack v Baldry [1988] 1 WLR 397
12
R v Weaver [2007] EWCA Crim 3485.
13
Home Office: Guide on Firearms Licensing Law; 2015; para.2.55.
14
Moore v Gooderham [1960] 1 WLR 1308 (per Lord Parker CJ), and see Read v Donovan [1947] K.B. 326.
See Law Com.C.P. No.224, para.2.7-2.23; and see R. Fortson Firearms and the Law, para.1.168 to 1.219.
15
See Law Com CP No.224, para.2.20-2.21; and R. Fortson Firearms and the Law, paras.1.179-1.205.
16
For example, Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Impower Ltd [1999] EWHC 309
(Admin); R v Ashton [2007] EWCA Crim 234; and note the Home Office publication: Guide on Firearms
Licensing Law; 2015).
17
See Law Com.C.P. No.224, para.3.13-3.19; and see R. Fortson Firearms and the Law, para.1.228-1.242.
18
Section 58(2), FA 1968.
Rudi Fortson QC ©
2
A short article of less 1000 words cannot do justice to the complex issues involved. Suffice
to say – as the Law Commission has pointed out – “the problems are not academic, but
cause significant difficulties in practice”.19 It is time that the law was reformed.
Rudi Fortson QC, 25 Bedford Row
Visiting Professor of Law, Queen Mary University of London
http://www.law.qmul.ac.uk/staff/fortson.html
http://www.25bedfordrow.com/site/people/profile/rudi.fortson
www.rudifortson4law.co.uk
19
Law Com. No.224, para.1.18; and see V. Scully, "On target: the Law Commission’s consultation on
reforming firearms law" Arch. Rev. 2015 7, 7–9.
Rudi Fortson QC ©
3