Hunting Roleplay

[Briutas]

42 minutes ago, Midsummer Night's Dream said:

You’re right.  I wish things were done differently when it comes to lawmaking.  I heard there were changes in the works but they seem to be moving rather slowly.  A legislative

assembly of some sort would give

civilians more things to do, allowing them to choose between — among other things — engaging as a concerned constituent or becoming the elected lawmaker.

 

As to the topic at hand:  

As Memozzy helpfully said above, the department’s PF usage rules are not necessarily law.  Even if they were considered in a similar light, the traditional rule is that statutes take precedence.  So, as far as a court is concerned, it will apply

the SHAFT provision (if it applies the PF usage regulation, that would be a reviewable error, or, in other words, a ground on which to appeal).  If anything, a court would rule that the department’s PF usage rules are only guidelines. 

 

And this applies to any other statute or provision in the penal code, not just SHAFT and PF usage.  So the rule to remember is this: where a part

of the penal code or a statute conflicts with anything which the police or sheriff departments publish, the penal code / statute is the one which controls. 
 

Have fun hunting.

 

 

 

 

I really wanna do the Hunting passive RP with my character, but I am genuinely worried I will get arrested and that will fuck up my character development as a legal character. Then I am afraid that when I sue the PD IC they will just implement some sort of Hunting license and be like 'see, should have applied'. So far I asked PD IC about it and they said Gov gives out Hunting licenses, I called gov and they were confused as hell and no reply on gov forums. It feels like that 'Hunting license' requirement on PF regulations just shouldn't exist. Especially for newer players.

[Memozzy]

I don't think they can implement something after-the-fact to get out of issues IC. It's like implementing new law and punishing people for breaking it before it was implemented. You could easily argue it imo.

[Midsummer Night's Dream]

1 hour ago, zaXer. said:

I wish it worked that way.

Gruppe 6 has moved forward in the past to sue PD about their "PPO endorsement", which was absolutley against the SHAFT code, however PD quickly deleted the endorsement right after the lawsuit, then they shut it off OOCly because 'it is not the time right now to deal with this'.

The PD FLD regulations are in such a bad shape about 50% of them do not even have a way to be fulfiled. A lot of the 'requirements' cannot be obtained and that's how PD stops certain activities (hunting, etc).

I agree that that case should have remained IC  (but it would have likely been dismissed anyway because it does not allege an injury particularized to Forge Law Group, the named plaintiff; I don’t think Forge Law Group ever held a GC permit, so they couldn’t have been particularly injured by the new regulations — and no particularized injury = no standing).
 

However, it seems the context here is slightly different from the regulations which briefly impacted Gruppe Sechs: 

 

From what I understood, the OP said his character wanted to abide by the law and hunt lawfully.  The implication is that he might be arrested and prosecuted, and then end up having his PF licence revoked because the SHAFT provision and the PF rule are conflicting.  If it plays out that way, he and others who have the same concerns can rest assured that there won’t be OOC interference (there typically isn’t for criminal proceedings) and that the court will apply the SHAFT provision and acquit him.  If, however, the context is only a license revocation without a prosecution, then his only recourse would be a suit in the civil division; and in that context, it may play out differently as you suggested.

 

Quote

I don't think they can implement something after-the-fact to get out of issues IC. It's like implementing new law and punishing people for breaking it before it was implemented. You could easily argue it imo.

 

This too.

 

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by Midsummer Night's Dream

[zaXer.]

Just now, Midsummer Night's Dream said:

I agree that that case should have remained IC  (but it would have likely been dismissed anyway because it does not allege an injury particularized to Forge Law Group, the named plaintiff; I don’t think Forge Law Group ever held a GC permit).
 

However, it seems the context here is slightly different from the regulations which briefly impacted Gruppe Sechs: 

 

From what I understood, the OP said his character wanted to abide by the law and hunt lawfully.  The implication is that he might be arrested and prosecuted, and then end up having his PF licence revoked because the SHAFT provision and the PF rule are conflicting.  If it plays out that way, he and others who have the same concerns can rest assured that there won’t be OOC interference (there typically isn’t for criminal proceedings) and that the court will apply the SHAFT provision and acquit him.  If, however, the context is only a license revocation without a prosecution, then his only recourse would be a suit in the civil division; and in that context, it may play out differently as you suggested.

Exactly. So pretty much, PD are using their advantage of 'controling' the SHAFT act and putting requirements that cannot be achieved (ex: obtaining a hunting license, obtaining a PPO endorsement, 'lawful' locations for hunting (with no explanation on what is lawful)) .

[Midsummer Night's Dream]

33 minutes ago, Briutas said:

I really wanna do the Hunting passive RP with my character, but I am genuinely worried I will get arrested and that will fuck up my character development as a legal character. Then I am afraid that when I sue the PD IC they will just implement some sort of Hunting license and be like 'see, should have applied'. So far I asked PD IC about it and they said Gov gives out Hunting licenses, I called gov and they were confused as hell and no reply on gov forums. It feels like that 'Hunting license' requirement on PF regulations just shouldn't exist. Especially for newer players.

 

I think if your PF is revoked for hunting without a permit, you should contact the Firearm Licensing Division and politely explain to them that there is no way to obtain one.  They should do the sensible thing and reinstate your permit.  If they don’t, then consider going to court; but I’d avoid this as much as possible until there’s a bright-line rule as to how laws are made.  The reason is that such a case might see OOC interference, unfortunately. 

 

In the other possible scenario, where you are arrested and prosecuted, rest assured that the court will not convict using the department’s PF usage rule.   That would be bizarre.  The court will apply the SHAFT provision that allows carrying for hunting; once applied, the result is an acquittal.  I‘d take it a step further and say that it won’t even pass the prosecutor’s inspection; a prosecutor should see that an arrest for carrying while hunting will have virtually no chance of a conviction.
 

You will be fine.  If an arrest and charge for carrying while hunting somehow passes the prosecutor, you will be fine as long as the court knows what it’s doing and applies the statute over a guideline.  

Edited May 1, 2020 by Midsummer Night's Dream

[Briutas]

Just now, Midsummer Night's Dream said:

 

I think if your PF is revoked for hunting without a permit, you should contact the Firearm Licensing Division and politely explain to them that there is no way to obtain one.  They should do the sensible thing and reinstate your permit.  If they don’t, then consider going to court; but I’d avoid this as much as possible until there’s a bright-line rule as to how laws are made.  The reason is that such a case might see OOC interference, unfortunately. 

 

In the other possible scenario, where you are arrested and prosecuted, rest assured that the court will not convict using the department’s PF usage rule.   That would be bizarre.  It will apply the SHAFT provision that allows carrying for hunting; once applied, the result is an acquittal.  I‘d take it a step further and say that it won’t even pass the prosecutor’s inspection; a prosecutor should see that an arrest for carrying while hunting will have virtually no chance of a conviction.
 

You will be fine.  If an arrest and charge for a firearm offence while hunting somehow passes the prosecutor, you will be fine as long as the court knows what it’s doing and applies the statute over a guideline.  

That is interesting, thanks for the answer. Actually gives me encouragement to take it IC, do the Hunting RP and see where it goes if I come across the PD. But imo.. It'd be better if you could just buy Hunting License the same way you buy Brewery License.

[Midsummer Night's Dream]

Sure.  That’s doable too.  The FLD could also, like you suggested in your OP, edit their PF guideline to make it consistent with SHAFT.

 

And you’re most certainly welcome!

Edited May 1, 2020 by Midsummer Night's Dream

[SaintBatemanofWallStreet]

So when the client ran on GTMP, there was in fact a way to hunt legally if I remember correctly. Yes, RAGE does not facilitate that in its current iteration, but I have heard rumors of that changing in 1.1. I don't know that to be a fact, but it's possible, and maybe even probable if 1.1 does live up to the sync hype and all that.

That being said, what it seems like to me, is that the law was written when it was a thing. And I'm not arguing a single bit that you shouldn't be allowed to go hunting. In fact, I'm 100% for it. I have 2 characters who would do it, one of which, during the last mule deer season when I needed a break for a few days, I RP'd him going to Colorado to hunt.

This is really the fault of the government for not addressing this in character. If you want to explain this in a way that would make sense currently, I would break it more into that the state may be reserving it's right to put a moratorium on the hunting of certain species while under biological study, which is possible and sometimes probably depending on the species and population and whatnot. It makes sense without saying "we don't have any animals for you to hunt" when that might change at any point. This seems like something I feel like people could let slide until the update comes and the hunting might actually be implemented.

[DarkAce]

I honestly think that hunting on GT MP was one of the most fun activities on the server, ever. I would love for Rage 1.1 for it to be brought back.

[Briutas]

21 minutes ago, SaintBatemanofWallStreet said:

So when the client ran on GTMP, there was in fact a way to hunt legally if I remember correctly. Yes, RAGE does not facilitate that in its current iteration, but I have heard rumors of that changing in 1.1. I don't know that to be a fact, but it's possible, and maybe even probable if 1.1 does live up to the sync hype and all that.

That being said, what it seems like to me, is that the law was written when it was a thing. And I'm not arguing a single bit that you shouldn't be allowed to go hunting. In fact, I'm 100% for it. I have 2 characters who would do it, one of which, during the last mule deer season when I needed a break for a few days, I RP'd him going to Colorado to hunt.

  Hide contents

 

 

This is really the fault of the government for not addressing this in character. If you want to explain this in a way that would make sense currently, I would break it more into that the state may be reserving it's right to put a moratorium on the hunting of certain species while under biological study, which is possible and sometimes probably depending on the species and population and whatnot. It makes sense without saying "we don't have any animals for you to hunt" when that might change at any point. This seems like something I feel like people could let slide until the update comes and the hunting might actually be implemented.

Hmm, they could... But why not allow people to passive RP in the meantime. It's gonna be epic if hunting was brought back but untill then, just going camping and hiking with friends pretending you're hunting is fun for me