This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Firearms Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: Gun politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Gun politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

At risk of opening a can of worms, I believe a non-expert would find this article confusing and disjointed. It is largely accurate but extremely jumbled up with substantial duplication and repetition of content. The opening paragraph notes that there has only been one spree shooting since Dunblane. Why is Dunblane the "marker"? Is Hungerford not relevant? Surely it makes more sense to simply state there have been three spree shootings in the UK rather than mentioning two and excluding the third!

The "Legal classification" section makes absolutely no mention of the actual legal classifications (Sections 1, 2, 5, 7, etc) except a reference to Section 1 Shotguns. It lists "Pistols" and "Target Pistols" separately, neither sitting below "Prohibited Firearms". For actual legal classifications you have to go down to "Licensing", which is bit of a wall-of-text.

Furthermore, there are five (five!) sections for further reading - See Also; Notes (which should be "References"); References (which is just 4 books which are relevant, but not actually cited in the article itself) and Legislation which has a subsection "Acts of Parliament" which includes SIs and things which are not Acts! External Links then lists BASC, UKPSA and the Met which also seems inconsistent. If we're linking out to the Met, should it not also include Police Scotland, PSNI and the others 50 territorial forces? If we're linking to BASC, then not also to NRA, NSRA, CPSA? I note that many references link to statements on Police licensing websites which more properly could all simply use one reference to the Home Office Guide to Police on Firearms Licensing.

Probably the most structured part is "Firearms Legislation" which just discusses each Act in order and is quite accessible (albeit incomplete - no PAC17 or OWB19). I would submit that the article needs a restructure and dedupe that clearly lays out the basic law and classifies what goes where, as well as rationalising the references, intra-wiki and external links. However, as there are different ways of doing this (e.g. Sec 1/2/5/7 with discussions of firearms within, or by firearm type with explicit mention of relevant certificates, etc) so am soliciting community feedback before making any major structural changes.

I propose:

"Impact" is supposed to be a summary/overview. It should be removed and the non-duplicative content bundled into the top/introductory section. It should probably be less than half the length it is.

""Legal Classification" and "Licensing" be merged to give a clear and accessible description/guide the legal classification of firearms and where they sit in licensing terms (which are largely conjoined descriptions). This is probably the most tricky section as to Law-first or Firearms-first (are the sub-headers doing to be Rifle/Pistol/Shotgun or Sec 1/2/5/7)? This is presumably why the two sections exist independently, but at the expense of duplication and risk of contradiction.

"Notes" becomes "References" (in common with most articles) and the four books in "References" be cited if relevant to article content or dropped if not. Question: The FA1968 legislation.gov.uk page is cited at least 5 times in the references - to different sections. Is this optimal or should there be a single FA1968 Ref with the relevant Section specified in the article or using RefPage tags?

Citations to Legislation should be included in a "Legislation" Group of references, which could obsolete the External Legislation links

Hemmers (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, it's very confusing in parts. I'll try and make changes here and then when I am able too. Let me know what you think of my progress. Rotation4020 (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. I find the article structure of this too confusing, but I'm not feeling bold enough to edit such a controversial article. On your first proposal, I think both "Impact and "Summary" should be bundled into the Lead. JAYFAX (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, there seems to also be numerous gramatical errors/inconsistencies related to ammunition being called "many a firearms round" DannyDouble (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SlinkyGlide: in case you were confused, this is the place where you can tell us about the reliable sources you used for your content if you're having trouble figuring out in-line citations. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone be opposed to a section on obsolete calibres and exceptions to the law where firearm ownership regulations is more lax or absent? - MountainKemono (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2024 and 16 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Raaid Hussain (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the paragraph on the assassination of William the Silent doesn't mention any gun legislation. the Warlow book doesn't even mention Queen Elizabeth, Hampton Court, William the Silent or wheellock pistols. that's because it was originally put there to support some other text that has since been deleted. it might be a useful footnote in the article on William of Orange but the absence of specific legislation means it doesn't really belong here, so I have deleted it. Cottonshirtτ 00:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the article currently includes a long unsourced quote commencing, "Whereas the late King James the Second," which purports to be part of the Bill of Rights of 1688, which, in turn, the editor claims "restated the ancient rights of the people to bear arms." whether accidentally or otherwise the editor who inserted these texts was mistaken as to the law and has misrepresented both the actions of James II and the text and effect of the Bill of Rights. since this article is about firearms legislation I think it important that we stick to what the act actually says. the Bill of Rights starts by saying, and I paraphrase slightly for brevity, "we were presented with this letter making these claims [insert text of letter] and we therefore assert the following: [state rights]." the quote in this article is from the letter, and it contains unevidenced and unproven claims about things that James II is alleged to have done. one of which is that he caused several Protestants to be disarmed. even if that were true, it is not firearms legislation. so it doesn't really belong in this article. the Bill of Rights then stated in fairly easily understood English the rights that English subjects had under the law as it actually existed at that time. it was a clarification of the current position and to avoid confusion and did not actually change any legislation regarding firearms. the only part of the Act that concerns firearms legislation is where it says, "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law." which doesn't say that everyone is entitled to have weapons. it says that the position is that orginally defined in the Cross-bows Act 1523, which says you need to own land worth more than £100 before you can own a gun. this was repeated in the Cross-bows Act 1541, the Militia Act 1662, and the Game Act 1670. that's what, "suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law," means. in accordance with the laws we already have. therefore, I have deleted all of that irrelevant distraction and replaced it with what I believe to be a more appropriate take on the Bill of Rights with specific focus on the topic of this article, firearms legislation. I appreciate that this is a contentious subject, and that such simple things as the meaning and definition of the word "arms," is not agreed upon by all parties, so I am expecting some push back on this but as long as we focus on improving the article and stick to the topic of firearms regulation in the United Kingdom, we'll be fine. Cottonshirtτ 05:15, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]