Where can I find regulations for establishing shooting (firearm) schools in the UK? Are there set laws or regulations that govern the setup of a clay pigeon school in the United Kingdom. If so, where can I find the specifications.
There are many regulations to consider, for the firearms themselves, the permits needed by potential customers, and licensing you will need as a business dealing with firearms and ammunition. Start with the Home Office: https://www.gov.uk/search?q=firearms I.e., https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/479794/Guidance_on_Firearms_Licensing_Law_Nov_2015_v16.pdf
Leonard's law says that the school can restrict speech if it is against the religious tenets of the organization. Now I don't think school uniforms fall are part of the tenets of Catholicism, so why can private schools enforce dress codes? I see there's a misunderstanding of the Leonard's law. But I fault the California legislators (not you) for that confusion, since the statutory language is ambiguous and leads to the reasonable interpretation your inquiry reflects. The statute reads: (c) This section does not apply to a private postsecondary educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization, to the extent that the application of this section would not be consistent with the religious tenets of the organization. It is not that a religious school is allowed to restrict speech if it contravenes the tenets of that religion, but that the statute altogether is inapplicable to religious schools because it is considered an infringement of fundamental liberties to which religious institutions are entitled in the US. The [religious] school would prevail on the basis of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. See Dermody v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 530 S.W.3d 467, 474 (2017): The ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine prohibits courts from deciding cases "dependent on the question of doctrine, discipline, ecclesiastical law, rule, or custom, or church government[.]". (Please note that I strongly disagree with the application of that doctrine in the Dermody case and I consider it impermissibly outdated for the controversy litigated therein, but that is a separate issue). A religious school could convincingly argue that the judicial review of its uniforms policy infringes matters of ecclesiastical discipline/rule/custom, aspects which ultimately "involve an internal church dispute over religious authority or dogma" Roman Cath. Archbishop of LA v. Super. Ct., 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 209, 220 (2005). Infringements of ecclesiastical abstention and akin doctrines would be outweighed only in "compelling" [cases] because "the duty to prosecute persons who commit serious crimes is part and parcel of the government's `paramount responsibility for the general safety and welfare of all its citizens'" Roman Cath. Archbishop of LA v. Super. Ct. at 225 (brackets added in this answer). A free speech controversy such as the school's uniform policy simply does not meet that threshold.
Generally, the Second Amendment, so the argument goes, guarantees American citizens the right to bear arms, aka carry firearms. State laws vary by state. California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York are the only states that do not have a provision in their state constitutions mirroring or significantly reflecting the provisions of the Second Amendment (although New York has a civil rights law containing something almost the same as the Second Amendment). Campus carry laws are also decided at the state level. There are three types: Mandatory: requires publicly funded schools to, in general, allow on-campus carrying (even though certain locations, such as a basketball game, may nonetheless bar weapons). Institutional: each school determines whether or not to allow firearms. These policies are subordinate to state law according to, for example, court holdings in Colorado and Oregon, and as stated by the University of Texas. Non-permissive: the law, with some exceptions, bans firearms on any institution's property. SCOTUS has held in McDonald v. City of Chicago that the Second Amendment applies to state and local laws and, thus, state and local laws are limited in the same way that federal laws are limited with respect to an individual's right to keep and bear arms. It had previously already held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns in District of Columbia v. Heller.
I'm not sure about USA law, it's probably similar to UK law. In the UK a trademark is registered for a particular business activity, and you can't just blanket register for "all" activities as that would be anti-competitive. I have a trademark "Dreamcraft" for dream interpretation and related activities. However, the name "Dreamcraft" is also a registered trademark for a company selling luxury yachts, and again for a company selling up-market craft materials. A website or organisation that is a gripe-site using the same name would not be in breach of any of these trademarks because it wouldn't be in direct competition with any of these companies.
Authorisation under section 51, Firearms Act 1968 is required but only if the criteria in the Home Office Guide on Firearms Licensing Law at Chapter 28: Authorisation of armed guards on UK registered ships is met: The policy to allow the use of armed guards applies only in exceptional circumstances: to ships transiting the area at risk of attack by pirates within the High Risk Area (HRA) which is bounded: in the Red Sea: northern limit: Latitude 15°N; in the Gulf of Oman: Northern limit: Latitude 22°N; Eastern limit: Longitude 065°E; Southern limit: Latitude 5°S; when ‘Best Management Practices’ to deter piracy is being followed fully but, on its own, is not deemed by the shipping company and the ship’s master as sufficient to protect against acts of piracy; AND the use of armed guards is assessed to reduce the risk to the lives and wellbeing of those on board the ship. The policy applies to internationally trading passenger ships and cargo ships of 500 gross tonnage and above. The policy only applies in relation to the protection of UK registered ships. The assurance process for the authorisation of private maritime security companies is to ensure that as far as possible public safety is not endangered by the use of armed guards. Private Maritime Security Companies (PMSCs) wishing to employ armed guards on board UK registered ships in these exceptional circumstances must be authorised to possess a range of firearms (which may include section 1 and section 2 weapons), including those requiring an authority from the Secretary of State for the Home Department under section 5 of the 1968 Act, and be able to deploy them as necessary. All PMSCs wishing to employ armed guards on UK registered ships must receive clearance via the Home Office section 5 authorisation process. It is an offence for a person to have in his possession, purchase, acquire, manufacture, sell or transfer, or possess, purchase or acquire for sale or transfer, a weapon prohibited under section 5 of the 1968 Act without the authority of the Secretary of State. It is also an offence not to comply with any condition of the authority. [...] 28.14 The PMSC must provide details of the number and type of section 5 prohibited firearms they wish to possess on board the UK registered ship, and why this number and type of weapon is necessary. All PMSCs must be authorised to possess section 5 firearms. The High Risk Area covered by this policy is shown by the red/orange hatching on this map, sourced from UK War Risks (no affiliation): 1Section 5(3) of the 1968 Act states: In this section “authority” means an authority given in writing by— (a) the Secretary of State (in or as regards England and Wales), or (b) the Scottish Ministers (in or as regards Scotland). In this instance, the authorisation would presumably be given by the Home Secretary
This is a question with a subjective answer, not a legal one. "Should I have to turn in my gun" legally, nobody is forced to turn in their guns because of mental illness. There are fourteen states in the United State that have laws to be able to seize weapons from mentally unstable individuals under what is known as "extreme risk protection orders(ERPOs)", these states are: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. North Caroline only restricts mentally ill individuals from buying firearms, not from owning them. Please see Possession of firearms by people with mental illness for more information about different states laws on mental illness and firearm use.
I think haveibeenpwned would be legal in the EU because it carries out a task in the public interest (Art. 6(1)(e)), and it shares no more data then necessary, for example you can search for a password, but it would not show you the emailaddress which belongs to that password. It would also be legal for you to hold a copy of a leaked database, but only if you have a legitimate interest (Art. 6(1)(f)) to have it. Being a security company does not change that, but finding a legitimate interest might be easier. If you have a legitimate interest to hold a copy of a leaked database, it does not mean you can use it in any way you like. For example testing if the password still works, is very likely illegal everywhere in the EU. But I'm not familiar with the UK laws.
As @DavidSupportsMonica says, you can't go back in time to fix the problem. As a rule regulators are more interested in obtaining compliance than throwing the book. There are no sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences, but most convictions lead to a fine. However HSE Policy is that enforcement should be proportionate to the degree of non-compliance and the level of risk created. 5.2 In our dealings with duty holders, we will ensure that our enforcement action is proportionate to the health and safety risks and to the seriousness of any breach of the law. This includes any actual or potential harm arising from any breach, and the economic impact of the action taken. 5.4 Applying the principle of proportionality means that our inspectors should take particular account of how far duty holders have fallen short of what the law requires and the extent of the risks created An annual inspection that was overdue by one day is a very minor failing, and the principle of proportionality means that you are most likely to get verbal advice not to let it happen again. You say &quot;if anything happens&quot;, presumably meaning if there is an actual incident or serious risk, such as a fire or CO poisoning. Its true that in such a case they will certainly want to look at your records, but the proportionality rule still applies. They would need to be able to make a causal link between your failing and the actual incident to make any more of it, which wouldn't be the case here.