Be wary read last paragraph

[crazycooker]

For info, last para is open to possible misuse 

The recent Firearms Bill, sponsored by Shaun Bailey MP and Lord Colgrain, has passed through the House of Lords for the final time and pending royal assent will become law.

The bill covers two main parts. The first requires anyone who operates a miniature rifle range to possess a firearms certificate, which is currently not the situation for such ranges. The bill also restricts the calibre of rifle used on these ranges to .22 rimfire.

The second part relates to the composition of ammunition. A round of ammunition is deemed to comprise of four constituent parts (case, primer, powder, and projectile), only two of which are governed by current legislation. The bill will now regulate for the projectile and casing as well as the charge and primer. This means that the police will be better able to prosecute cases where criminals are manufacturing ammunition where intent can be shown.

Lord Ponsonby added during the final reading that in future in addition to current background checks, “social media should be taken into account when considering whether to issue a firearms licence”.

[Newbie to this]

6 minutes ago, crazycooker said:

The second part relates to the composition of ammunition. A round of ammunition is deemed to comprise of four constituent parts (case, primer, powder, and projectile), only two of which are governed by current legislation. The bill will now regulate for the projectile and casing as well as the charge and primer. This means that the police will be better able to prosecute cases where criminals are manufacturing ammunition where intent can be shown.

Looks like they are going after reloading as well 

[HantsRob]

Interesting. Any links?

It is interesting they are only going after non-shotguns, based on that post. I'm curious to how this would regulate 'spent brass' and recycling, and if this means there's an onus to track what's fired and why you no longer have parts post-firing?

The social media point..... how would you see that misused? Are you suggesting if someone is displaying poor behaviour and attitudes that because it's social media it shouldn't be factored in? I could see the argument of how some things can be subjective, but some things are very blatant. So it's more curious to the weighting of what's posted.

[Spr1985]

8 hours ago, HantsRob said:

The social media point..... how would you see that misused? Are you suggesting if someone is displaying poor behaviour and attitudes that because it's social media it shouldn't be factored in? I could see the argument of how some things can be subjective, but some things are very blatant. So it's more curious to the weighting of what's posted.

Or, that what you post although not illegal or wrong is against the opinion/view of those making the decision and therefore to your detriment.