Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Terry Amburgey <XANTH@****.UKY.EDU>
Subject: Advice
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 10:41:03 EDT
The Shadowtech book describes 'permits' for restricted items and their
acquisition. However, some restricted items are described as requiring a
'special license' and their legality codes do not contain a 'P'. How do you
handle a license as opposed to a permit? What sort of house rules do you use
for availablity and price? Terry
Message no. 2
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Advice
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 13:04:26 -0400
On Wed, 20 Jul 1994, Terry Amburgey wrote:

> The Shadowtech book describes 'permits' for restricted items and their
> acquisition. However, some restricted items are described as requiring a
> 'special license' and their legality codes do not contain a 'P'. How do you
> handle a license as opposed to a permit? What sort of house rules do you use
> for availablity and price? Terry
>

Usually, the sorts of weapons/equipment that require that sort of
"permit" are the mil-spec or security type equipment. In situation where
these types of things are in question, think about it logically. Take
that Sentry Gun that your players want to erect in their apartment. The
best in home defense. Well, I'll bet it's safe to say that the
characters are not a licensed security/paramilitary firm, so as far as
the law goes, they are hosed, and get nailed for possession. Most of the
legality classifications talk about "a licensed security agency," so it's
not the weapon that has to be licensed, but the people who own it. If
you have no license that says "I am a legal security corporation" then
you are in deep dog-drek. If some crafty players decide to form a legal
security-based corporate entity, they have a whole new set of worries
opened up to them.
Availability is easy. You go to the government and say "I want to form
a corporation." What? Got no SIN? Sucks to be you. Something like a
corporate charter or security practitioners' license would be extremely
difficult to fake, simply because of the number of people and sources who
will be routinely cross checking it (IRS, other corps, the police,
your supplier, anyone who catches you red handed, etc.).
Cost is another matter. Provided the players can pull off being able
to apply for the license, they basically have to form a company, pay
taxes on declared income, pay overhead, etc. It's up to you how you want
to do the prices for that kind of stuff.
Hope this helped, and sorry it's so long.

Marc
Message no. 3
From: DAVID M GIRARDOT <dmg5@***.CC.LEHIGH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Advice
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 23:14:39 -0400
On Wed, 20 Jul 1994, Terry Amburgey wrote:

> The Shadowtech book describes 'permits' for restricted items and their
> acquisition. However, some restricted items are described as requiring a
> 'special license' and their legality codes do not contain a 'P'. How do you
> handle a license as opposed to a permit? What sort of house rules do you use
> for availablity and price? Terry

It always seemed to me that the book price for permits was ridiculously
low. I wanted to impose heavy restrictions on weaponry thereby making
players think twice about toting ordinance under their lined coats so I
came up with the idea of graded permits. Basically, all permits the
players buy with resources are fakes. Each 10% of the weapon's value
spent on the permit gives 1 rating. So, if your gun costs 750, you could
spend 300 for a rating 3 permit. I didn't flesh out how the ratings
worked, exactly. Probably the officer rolls his IQ against the rating
modified for situation. I would also limit permit availability to
what made sense for the character. One rule of thumb was that the
char. had to a) have an appropriate contact and/or b) have high
enough skill in the appropriate etiquette skill. But with any "system"
for determining permits you have to be careful that you aren't giving
your players the ability to "buy their way in" to unbablancing weaponry.
YMMV, but in my last game I imposed a basic guideline in place of the
above house rule, and many other house rules: "Your char. has to hae
a good reason for everything he buys." The idea there is that there
are no 'set' limitations on what stuff a char can buy; but everything
the char. has should make sense to the char's concept and not be there
because 'it would make her more effective'.

My .02 Nuyen.

-- David


---David M Girardot-----dmg5@***.cc.lehigh.edu---dmg@**.com---dmg5@******.edu-
------Staff Documentation: CorNet Ltd---Freelance Consulting------------------
---EdTech: Lehigh University------Residence: Easton, Pa-----------------------
------"My opinions are my own, even when they don't make any sense."----------
Message no. 4
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Advice
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 21:11:58 +1000
David writes:

> It always seemed to me that the book price for permits was ridiculously
> low. I wanted to impose heavy restrictions on weaponry thereby making
> players think twice about toting ordinance under their lined coats...

Well, the permit system doesnt seem to different from the US now. [not that
I live there, I could be talking complete shit] But isn't it possible to get
ahold of an assault rifle in the US, and have apermit for it? SR only allows
permits for heavy pistols, sporting rifles and non autofirre shotguns. These
dont seem particularily deadly to me. And remember, that all the gangers,
gutterpunks and street trash that the runners deal with also have access to
the same ordinance. Makes runners a bit more hesitant to start a fight if
they know the enemies may have some decent form of weaponry. Also remember
that to get a permit the runners need to have a SIN, this cuts down the
number of permits runners can get pretty drastically, as not too many
runners want to voluntarily start their characters off with a SIN. Having a
SIN creates its own host of problems.

> So I came up with the idea of graded permits.

This idea is great for illegal, forged permits, I like it. Also, on the
subject of being able to "buy themselves unbalancing weaponry", the cross
checks for a permit for an Assault Cannon would be a tad more hefty than
those for a sporting rifle. And the runners would still need to illegally
buy the nasty weapons (no mean feat to get ahold of an A-Cannon), as I would
think the fake permit the runners had would never stand up to the checks
made on it when they actually purchased their A-Cannon. A fake permit would
be fine for fooling the street cop asking if you have a permit to carry
around that shotgun, but not (I think) too useful to fool him for the old
A-Cannon. A heavy weapon permit check would be much more indepth than a
light, legal, sidearms. (Not that a shotgun is a light sidearm, but anyhow)

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong e-mail: u9467882@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U P? !L !3 E? N K- W+ M
!V po@ Y t(+) !5 !j r+(++) G(+) !tv(--) b++ D+ B? e+ u@ h+(*)
f+@ !r n--(----)@ !y+
Message no. 5
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Advice
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 14:06:00 -0700
Yes MILLIKEN, you're talkin' shit.

On Thu, 21 Jul 1994, MILLIKEN DAMION A wrote:

> David writes:
>
> > It always seemed to me that the book price for permits was ridiculously
> > low. I wanted to impose heavy restrictions on weaponry thereby making
> > players think twice about toting ordinance under their lined coats...
>
> Well, the permit system doesnt seem to different from the US now. [not that
> I live there, I could be talking complete shit] But isn't it possible to get
> ahold of an assault rifle in the US, and have apermit for it?

No way in H**L does anyone in the USA get a permit for any kind of
autofire anything. That's total BS. There is a firearms *DEALER*
license that allows someone to sell the things, but then they can only
sell them to the police. The silly things people out of the uSA think go
here! And I might add, it is difficult to get any form of "carry" permit
for any weapon in the USA now.

SR only allows
> permits for heavy pistols, sporting rifles and non autofirre shotguns. These
> dont seem particularily deadly to me. And remember, that all the gangers,
> gutterpunks and street trash that the runners deal with also have access to
> the same ordinance.

Heck, people such as you are describing can't get a permit to carry a
weapon NOW! They carry illegally, just like the SRII folks do.

Makes runners a bit more hesitant to start a fight if
> they know the enemies may have some decent form of weaponry. Also remember
> that to get a permit the runners need to have a SIN, this cuts down the
> number of permits runners can get pretty drastically, as not too many
> runners want to voluntarily start their characters off with a SIN. Having a
> SIN creates its own host of problems.

Yep, no ID, no permit. True now in the USA.

> > So I came up with the idea of graded permits.
>
> This idea is great for illegal, forged permits, I like it. Also, on the
> subject of being able to "buy themselves unbalancing weaponry", the cross
> checks for a permit for an Assault Cannon would be a tad more hefty than
> those for a sporting rifle. And the runners would still need to illegally
> buy the nasty weapons (no mean feat to get ahold of an A-Cannon), as I would
> think the fake permit the runners had would never stand up to the checks
> made on it when they actually purchased their A-Cannon. A fake permit would
> be fine for fooling the street cop asking if you have a permit to carry
> around that shotgun, but not (I think) too useful to fool him for the old
> A-Cannon. A heavy weapon permit check would be much more indepth than a
> light, legal, sidearms. (Not that a shotgun is a light sidearm, but anyhow)
>

Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant! Great thinking there Damion. Let me
see if I can get this over. The 'Runners are criminals. They make their
living doing illegal things. Those things require that the runners have
grossly illegal weapons. They have to buy their weapons the same way
criminals do now. From criminal middlemen. Permits??? A level 8 forged
license on your credstik will get you past the street cop, just don't get
arrested. Or, even better, carry something comcealable!

Ivy
Message no. 6
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Advice
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 20:36:27 +1000
Ivy writes:

> No way in H**L does anyone in the USA get a permit for any kind of
> autofire anything. That's total BS. There is a firearms *DEALER*
> license that allows someone to sell the things, but then they can only
> sell them to the police. The silly things people out of the uSA think go
> here! And I might add, it is difficult to get any form of "carry" permit
> for any weapon in the USA now.

Well, the truth comes out. Thats what you get from trusting what people tell
you eh? Shouldnt be so niave (sp?).

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong e-mail: u9467882@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U P? !L !3 E? N K- W+ M
!V po@ Y t(+) !5 !j r+(++) G(+) !tv(--) b++ D+ B? e+ u@ h+(*)
f+@ !r n--(----)@ !y+
Message no. 7
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Advice
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 11:16:31 -0400
Ivy and Damion [having a rabid discussion about the legality of firearms
in the USA, and what runners would likely be carrying.]


Ivy makes a good point that you can no longer get an automatic weapon
without a class 3 Federal Firearms License. She says emphatically that
you can't gewt automatic anything, and is appalled by what foreigners
think goes on her. But ya know, not all that long ago, Damion was
actually right.

The purchase of fully automatic weapons by ordinary average citizens was
neither difficult nor illegal until 1987. They're still not hard to get
(depending on who you know), but now the difference is that you don't
want to get caught carrying it around. Oh, and possession is still
legal. And as to carry permits, thae ease with which they are obtained
varies by state. In Alaska, Florida, and Texas, they are fairly easy to
get. In New York and California, it just don't happen. In many states,
the only kind of permit you can get is for concealed weapons, and if you
wear a weapon openly or display it in any way, even if it is legal and
you own a permit, you can still be brought up on charges of brandishment.

So this all goes to show...the situation is so messed up that you are
safer off assuming a "maximum drek" scenarion.

Marc (firearms convert, but not with those freakin' rabid NRA fools!)
Message no. 8
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Advice
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 12:27:16 -0700
On Fri, 22 Jul 1994, Marc A Renouf wrote:

> Ivy and Damion [having a rabid discussion about the legality of firearms
> in the USA, and what runners would likely be carrying.]
>
>
> Ivy makes a good point that you can no longer get an automatic weapon
> without a class 3 Federal Firearms License. She says emphatically that
>
> The purchase of fully automatic weapons by ordinary average citizens was
> neither difficult nor illegal until 1987. They're still not hard to get

Actually, Marc. Autofire weapons were made completely illegal to own
without a special license and an FBI background check in _1933_. The
special license was available to registered collectors only, cost $200.00
(a bargain now, but big money in the 50s), and did require an FBI
background check just like the one I had to get for my Top Secret clearance.

> (depending on who you know), but now the difference is that you don't
> want to get caught carrying it around. Oh, and possession is still
> legal.

Not as legal as it could be. You still have to have that license (now
$3500) and the BI. A DWUI will lose you your license.

And as to carry permits, thae ease with which they are obtained
> varies by state. In Alaska, Florida, and Texas, they are fairly easy to
> get.

Funny, Texas absolutely forbids anyone except a policeman to carry a gun,
concealed or openly. The current gubernatorial race is swinging on this
point in fact. The current gov is anti gun, and vetoed a bill that would
have brought the legalization of personal carry laws to a vote. I have
no idea about Alaska and FLA.

In New York and California, it just don't happen. In many states,
> the only kind of permit you can get is for concealed weapons, and if you
> wear a weapon openly or display it in any way, even if it is legal and
> you own a permit, you can still be brought up on charges of brandishment.
>
> So this all goes to show...the situation is so messed up that you are
> safer off assuming a "maximum drek" scenarion.

Yup, but htat's always the case.

> Marc (firearms convert, but not with those freakin' rabid NRA fools!)
>
What you got against us? <grin> Yes, I know that a lot of them are
extreme, and extremely stupid. But somebody has to lobby, and outside of
the Committee to Keep and Bear Arms they are the only ones doing
anything. I'm a member of both groups, I don't hunt, target shoot or
anything else with guns anymore. But I spent 20 years in the Army, and
every re-enlistment I swore to protect the country, and the constitutuon
from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I can't break that habit.

Oh, yes, I own guns. Protection calls for it. My protection. The
nearest police to my home is a 15 minute drive. And the only time they
were called it took them two hours. That's life, now a days.

Oh, yeah, the SRishness of all this is that SRII lives under the laws
that Pres C and Ms Brady are trying to pass right now. Those "permits"
and "licenses" are only available to those with a SIN. And even then you
need a decent wage to afford them. Guess what probabaly 60% of the
population don't have? The ability to have a gun for their own protection.

And the Lone Star sure looks l;ike the Cops now a days too. <grin>

Ivy
Message no. 9
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Advice
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 1994 17:31:52 +1000
Ivy writes:

> Not as legal as it could be. You still have to have that license (now
> $3500) and the BI. A DWUI will lose you your license.

BI? DWUI? what are these. I could always use an excuse to revoke a runners
permit :-) (besides having the SIN they used to obtain the permit traced by
someone who they did something nasty to [like a corp], and well, having
several large men in suits with uzis come over and visit them - next time
they leave blood etc in some corp compound, the better watch out if they
have a SIN)

> Oh, yeah, the SRishness of all this is that SRII lives under the laws
> that Pres C and Ms Brady are trying to pass right now. Those "permits"
> and "licenses" are only available to those with a SIN. And even then you
> need a decent wage to afford them. Guess what probabaly 60% of the
> population don't have? The ability to have a gun for their own protection.

Legaly that is :-)

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong e-mail: u9467882@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U P? !L !3 E? N K- W+ M
!V po@ Y t(+) !5 !j r+(++) G(+) !tv(--) b++ D+ B? e+ u@ h+(*)
f+@ !r n--(----)@ !y+
Message no. 10
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Advice
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 09:03:59 -0700
On Sat, 23 Jul 1994, MILLIKEN DAMION A wrote:

> Ivy writes:
>
> > Not as legal as it could be. You still have to have that license (now
> > $3500) and the BI. A DWUI will lose you your license.
>
> BI? DWUI? what are these. I could always use an excuse to revoke a runners

BI = Background Investigation, DWUI = Driving While Under the Influence
of intoxicants. Drunk or stoned driving, in other words.

Yep, Legally.

Ivy
Message no. 11
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Advice
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 11:22:52 -0400
>>>>> "Ivy" == Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG> writes:

>> BI? DWUI? what are these. I could always use an excuse to revoke a runners

Ivy> BI = Background Investigation, DWUI = Driving While Under the
Ivy> Influence of intoxicants. Drunk or stoned driving, in other words.

It's "DUI" (Driving Under the Influence) or "DWI" (Driving While
Intoxicated), not "DWUI" in most jurisdictions.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! | fnord fnord fnord
Message no. 12
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Advice
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 15:36:14 -0700
you are correct for "most jurisdictions" Rat,

On Mon, 25 Jul 1994, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> >>>>> "Ivy" == Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG> writes:
>
> >> BI? DWUI? what are these. I could always use an excuse to revoke a runners
>
> Ivy> BI = Background Investigation, DWUI = Driving While Under the
> Ivy> Influence of intoxicants. Drunk or stoned driving, in other words.
>
> It's "DUI" (Driving Under the Influence) or "DWI" (Driving While
> Intoxicated), not "DWUI" in most jurisdictions.

but I'm in Orygun, and they're different. Heck, in Idaho it's still
called DD (Drunk Driving). The west is a bit wierd still.

Ivy

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Advice, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!