Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
Sign in to follow this  
Briutas

Hunting Roleplay

Recommended Posts

Briutas    87

So... I know there is no way to hunt script wise as it's not working on Rage, but alot of people would still enjoy roleplaying hunting. Going camping, hikings with their firearms on like prolonged huntings trips. Atleast personally I miss that, especially as a legal character. I would love to do so and the Law says I should be able too, but then there is PD regulations that state you need to have valid hunting license and as far as I know there is no way of getting a hunting license.

Why not make it possible to buy a Hunting license for like $50.000K or just remove regulations that there is no way of fullfilling.


SHAFT ACT

SECTION 302
§ 302. CARRYING OF FIREARMS — (a) No person shall carry an exposed firearm unless;

  • The person holds a valid Personal Firearms License, per SHAFT Act Section 202, and is participating in lawful activities such as hunting, sporting, self defense, training, or demonstration.




PD REGULATIONS
3 PF License Usage Regulations

  • A PF License holder:
    • Must not carry their firearm exposed on their person unless one of the following applies:
      • The licensee has a "Guard Card" and is acting within the scope of their employment at their place of employment.
      • The licensee is participating in a lawful activity (e.g. hunting (with a valid hunting license), sporting (at lawful locations), or training/demonstration (at lawful locations)).
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Matas    91

Fully support this, we need that!

Share this post


Link to post
Naru    12

+1

Bring it that far that a select number of qualified players are allowed to use an animal skin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Gustavs    19
Posted (edited)

I will support you in this.

 

If your character is based in County - Paleto/Sandy and such, then most likely your character's hobbies would be Hunting and so on, like my character but I don't want to fulfil it, because of PD rules.. 

Edited by Gustavs
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Gryphboi    96

Yes please.

Share this post


Link to post
Memozzy    22

Correct me if I'm wrong but PD Regulations are not law? Law is law. If there is contradiction or a limit on lawfully given rights in SA penal code or SHAFT act couldn't you just sue the department? Wasn't it already done and SHAFT came  as an outcome? Perhaps I'm misremembering tho idk.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, Memozzy said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but PD Regulations are not law? Law is law. If there is contradiction or a limit on lawfully given rights in SA penal code or SHAFT act couldn't you just sue the department? Wasn't it already done and SHAFT came  as an outcome? Perhaps I'm misremembering tho idk.


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.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Midsummer Night's Dream

Share this post


Link to post
zaXer.    223
13 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 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).

Share this post


Link to post
Memozzy    22
Posted (edited)

All I could really say is take it IC if there's contradictions and if you're bothered then sue, and if the case is being thrown out on some weird OOC bases despite being fully IC then take it up to administrators in a form of a report or an expression of concern. 

 

Go as high the admin-chain as needed using proper means. But maybe I'm just feeling optimistic today. 

 

If a court would rule your way yet PD disregards the ruling then sue again, sue-sue-sue-sue! America is beautiful. ?

Edited by Memozzy

Share this post


Link to post
zaXer.    223
Just now, Memozzy said:

All I could really say is take it IC if there's contradictions and if you're bothered then sue, and if the case is being thrown out on some weird OOC bases despite being fully IC then take it up to administrators in a form of a report or an expression of concern. 

 

Go as high the admin-chain as needed using proper means. But maybe I'm just feeling optimistic today. 

you are feeling indeed very optimistic. I wish it worked that way, a lot of things could've been solved.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...