7.3 Illegal Transportation of an Offensive Weapon

So this is aimed more towards Hicktown, as well as similar properties in V6. Currently, even residing outside your own property at hicktown (While fishing etc) Carrying a weapon is a violation of penal code 7.3.

Even if you own all the Hicktown Trailers, you are still not allowed to visibly have a weapon on you, whether it is brandished or not. This causes major safety concerns, given the muggable area it is, Police cruising by will confiscate your weapon off you despite knowing that, without a gun out, you are very likely to be mugged or unable to defend your property if someone chooses to.

Law on properties and 7.3 should be changed. Stating that if you own a property, or are residing outside of a owned property, then having a visible weapon on you, does not make it liable to forfeiture.

As currently, any offensive weapon is liable for forfeiture if any laws have been broken with said offensive weapon. This would also assist in roleplay as it would make sense, if you own all 3 Hicktown trailers, that you also own the land out front of it, meaning that you are allowed carry or brandish an offensive weapon although, due it being outside of your own property, entering it would not be a reason for you to KOS someone, only liable to trespassing tickets and such if they loiter.

Unsure if you would need to add a new law or change existing laws.

This came up because an officer, last night gave us a warning about our guns, and later came back to confiscate them. This ended up getting me and my friends killed. All of this, despite us having them on us to prevent mugging while we were fishing as well as owning all 3 trailers. As just because we were not currently residing inside our property but only 5m outside of them, our assets were liable for forfeiture due to 7.3.

Or, since I know this is about me confiscating your firearms yesterday. You can listen to the officer their advise and get concealed weaponry which isn't visible to the police but is still useful to defend yourself.

Lucius Husky said:

Or, since I know this is about me confiscating your firearms yesterday. You can listen to the officer their advise and get concealed weaponry which isn't visible to the police but is still useful to defend yourself.

Click to expand...

The only problem with this is, firearms such as pistols are very hard to see, especially during nighttime which always leads to attempt mugging while you have a firearm out which always leads to either one of you getting killed. (people always accidentally violate 3.4 because of this). Therefore the whole reason of having a visible firearm out such as an AR or shotgun, is to prevent this.

It is basically a heyyy, I have a weapon out. You can't mug me.

Also I would like to add, having a concealed weapon does nothing, you can still be mugged with a weapon on you if it isn't drawn, which would then just insist, that if the police don't see you doing it, you're not breaking a law, which is just silly.

iiTzWasParsnip said:

Also I would like to add, having a concealed weapon does nothing, you can still be mugged with a weapon on you if it isn't drawn, which would then just insist, that if the police don't see you doing it, you're not breaking a law, which is just silly.

Click to expand...

This is the same with weaponry on your back? You can still be gunpointed if it isn't drawn.

iiTzWasParsnip said:

The only problem with this is, firearms such as pistols are very hard to see, especially during nighttime which always leads to attempt mugging while you have a firearm out which always leads to either one of you getting killed. (people always accidentally violate 3.4 because of this). Therefore the whole reason of having a visible firearm out such as an AR or shotgun, is to prevent this.

Click to expand...

There's short/cut off shotguns or smaller SMG's that are concealed. If you see someone sneaking up, you take it out and its clearly visible.

Lucius Husky said:

This is the same with weaponry on your back? You can still be gunpointed if it isn't drawn.



There's short/cut off shotguns or smaller SMG's that are concealed. If you see someone sneaking up, you take it out and its clearly visible.

Click to expand...

Good point, ngl, I actually forgot that SMGs and concealable shotguns existed LMAO

This isn’t even really a law reform it’s more of a property lines reform. This realistically would be exceptionally annoying because how would you tell in you’re inside/outside your property: also if you just change the law to say something silly like “nearby your property” it’s very open to interpretation and annoying on the PD side of things. Overall the current system works fine.

Related thread:


If we were to set up a motion for a change to 7.3, the above would probably be closer to what we'd want to let everyone vote on. Is this something the community is still interested in? Without wanting to give too much away, the forest is a little different in V6, so I would be interested to see what the sentiment is in regards to allowing weapons to be carried in the forest once we've seen how these changes play out.

Collier said:

Related thread:

Thread '7.3 Change to allow carry in forest'

Aug 4, 2023

Is this a new law or a change to a current law:

Change to 7.3.

What law do you wish to change/add:

7.3 Possession of Offensive Weapons​

Any person who is in possession of any offensive weapon in a public area without a reasonable excuse commits an offence. Offensive weapons include, but are not necessarily limited to the following, firearms, baseball bats, knives, machetes, or improvised/adapted items with the intent to harm or cause damage. Offensive weapons may be carried in the forest area for the purpose of personal protection.

Misdemeanor - liable to 2 years...

• Bnjemann
• Replies: 8
• Forum: Law Reform

• 
• 
• 

If we were to set up a motion for a change to 7.3, the above would probably be closer to what we'd want to let everyone vote on. Is this something the community is still interested in? Without wanting to give too much away, the forest is a little different in V6, so I would be interested to see what the sentiment is in regards to allowing weapons to be carried in the forest once we've seen how these changes play out.

Click to expand...

I think this would be beneficial to everyone personally but I think a guide map would have to be made to show where forest ends and begins because I know some people will try and argue they are in it when they are not actually in it

As a bit of a compromise, what would we think of the following:

Instead of allowing carry near your property, regardless of where it is, we allow forest carry for anyone who resides in a forest property. This would aim to allow people who actually live there to defend themselves, but prevent people with bad intentions (such as muggers patrolling for victims) from being able to carry weapons legally.

Is this preferable to the original post, and the post I linked above? This would still require a vote to pass.

Collier said:

As a bit of a compromise, what would we think of the following:

Instead of allowing carry near your property, regardless of where it is, we allow forest carry for anyone who resides in a forest property. This would aim to allow people who actually live there to defend themselves, but prevent people with bad intentions (such as muggers patrolling for victims) from being able to carry weapons legally.

Is this preferable to the original post, and the post I linked above? This would still require a vote to pass.

Click to expand...

Instead of people actually using Forest properties as they should, every single esport mugger would buy a forest property, do nothing with it and patrol around looking for mugs

Collier said:

As a bit of a compromise, what would we think of the following:

Instead of allowing carry near your property, regardless of where it is, we allow forest carry for anyone who resides in a forest property. This would aim to allow people who actually live there to defend themselves, but prevent people with bad intentions (such as muggers patrolling for victims) from being able to carry weapons legally.

Is this preferable to the original post, and the post I linked above? This would still require a vote to pass.

Click to expand...

Would this be worth doing with the upcoming map change?

Titan Parker said:

Would this be worth doing with the upcoming map change?

Click to expand...

There’s still a forest in v6

Goose. said:

There’s still a forest in v6

Click to expand...

Yeah , It will be different though as Collier already mentioned

I think we really need to see the forest before deciding on this law reform in my opinion. It really depends on how large it is, the amount of properties, etc.

Goose. said:

I think we really need to see the forest before deciding on this law reform in my opinion. It really depends on how large it is, the amount of properties, etc.

Click to expand...

@Collier is probably more familiar with v6 at this point than v5 so he probably knows what he's talking about xd

Well, regardless of what may or may not have changed in V6's forest, the area will continue to be muggable, so if the motivation behind these suggestions is self-defence, it will certainly be applicable to V6 as well

Forest is commonly used by new players, especially hicktown. Passing a law that allows players to roam the forest with a weapon would make it considerably easier to mug these new players.

Also it would make it harder on police as either you need to own the property or you need to verify keys which would take a considerably amount of time it you’re driving them over to the property.

Collier said:

As a bit of a compromise, what would we think of the following:

Instead of allowing carry near your property, regardless of where it is, we allow forest carry for anyone who resides in a forest property. This would aim to allow people who actually live there to defend themselves, but prevent people with bad intentions (such as muggers patrolling for victims) from being able to carry weapons legally.

Is this preferable to the original post, and the post I linked above? This would still require a vote to pass.

Click to expand...

My only concern with this is people buying property and never using it at all so they can just easily be able to mug people without facing legal repercussions for having a firearm out. I think we are heading in the right direction though. I would add in that people are still subject to detainment by the PLPD until it can be proven they at least own a property in forest so people don’t get pissed off or file IAs 24/7

Collier said:

Related thread:

Thread '7.3 Change to allow carry in forest'

Aug 4, 2023

Is this a new law or a change to a current law:

Change to 7.3.

What law do you wish to change/add:

7.3 Possession of Offensive Weapons​

Any person who is in possession of any offensive weapon in a public area without a reasonable excuse commits an offence. Offensive weapons include, but are not necessarily limited to the following, firearms, baseball bats, knives, machetes, or improvised/adapted items with the intent to harm or cause damage. Offensive weapons may be carried in the forest area for the purpose of personal protection.

Misdemeanor - liable to 2 years...

• Bnjemann
• Replies: 8
• Forum: Law Reform

• 
• 
• 

If we were to set up a motion for a change to 7.3, the above would probably be closer to what we'd want to let everyone vote on. Is this something the community is still interested in? Without wanting to give too much away, the forest is a little different in V6, so I would be interested to see what the sentiment is in regards to allowing weapons to be carried in the forest once we've seen how these changes play out.

Click to expand...

I think this would be great. As mostly everyone carries while in the forest and will make it so their firearms aren't just going to get taken away by police for 7.3.