[+1 dismissal]On Bizarre Weapon Carry rules

In most legal systems, it is harder to get a concealed weapon permit than an open weapon permit. Concealed weapons are more dangerous, and offer tactical advantages over it being visible.

For some weird reason, though, the security team here has to keep their weapons hidden at all times until there is an emergency on hand. Everyone knows they have them, they're security.

So why exactly is it a bad to have a weapon on your belt, but not in a hostler. There is 0 mechanical difference between these two things other than 'you can see the weapon'. It's one click to put them into your hand.

Hell, if you have your backpack open at all times like most people, it's still 1 click to pull the gun out.

And yet, there is a sort of powergaming accusation vibe to people who carry guns on their waist, like it is somehow an intense tactical advantage to have your weapon clearly visible on your waist.

Can we like, revise this to make some actual bloody sense. Open to ideas here.

So why exactly is it a bad to have a weapon on your belt, but not in a hostler. There is 0 mechanical difference between these two things other than 'you can see the weapon'. It's one click to put them into your hand.

I agree that it's kinda weird ruling on the whole thing, but a mechanical thing is that if you're on hotkey mode, you can press "H" to draw a weapon.

Security has to have their weapons holstered not hidden.

But guess who isn't supposed to have a gun in the first place, everyone else. In the more modern places guns aren't a thing you carry in public like a wallet.

And there is one critical difference mechanical difference, time.

Let's make a scenario:

I have a security officer who has his gun holstered and I have a captain who carries his antique laser gun on his waist.

Let's say I smack the security officer with a good fat stun, I have to drag him onto me, take off his container, drag the container onto myself, look through it and then finally I can click on the weapon to put it in my hand to shoot on him. The average stun means the security officer would most likely be getting up when I'm going through the backpack.

Now in the other case I smack the captain, drag the gun off, pick it up and shoot him in the face. If I'm fast enough I can do this with a slip and don't even need a stun.

Nobody accusses security officers of being powergamers when they wear their guns on their waist.

People accusse captains/HoP's who wear guns around their waist while running to active reported threats on code green.

Carrying a gun around with you on code green without any suspicious activity as a Captain/HoP is powergaming even if you keep it in your backpack but people don't have x-ray vision and so usually they don't ahelp it.

The carry rules have nothing to do with laws. It's internal policy.

A weapon on code green should be secured in a holster as to not create alarm or distress in staff. Note that the policy also has an effect on how openly you can brandish the weapon: on code green, it should only be brandished when it is immediately necessary; on code red, you can openly patrol with the weapon in hand. So it has a way greater effect outside of the dilemma of, "Can I wear it on the belt or not."

Security has to have their weapons holstered not hidden.

But guess who isn't supposed to have a gun in the first place, everyone else. In the more modern places guns aren't a thing you carry in public like a wallet.

And there is one critical difference mechanical difference, time.

Let's make a scenario:

I have a security officer who has his gun holstered and I have a captain who carries his antique laser gun on his waist.

Let's say I smack the security officer with a good fat stun, I have to drag him onto me, take off his container, drag the container onto myself, look through it and then finally I can click on the weapon to put it in my hand to shoot on him. The average stun means the security officer would most likely be getting up when I'm going through the backpack.

Now in the other case I smack the captain, drag the gun off, pick it up and shoot him in the face. If I'm fast enough I can do this with a slip and don't even need a stun.

Nobody accusses security officers of being powergamers when they wear their guns on their waist.

People accusse captains/HoP's who wear guns around their waist while running to active reported threats on code green.

Carrying a gun around with you on code green without any suspicious activity as a Captain/HoP is powergaming even if you keep it in your backpack but people don't have x-ray vision and so usually they don't ahelp it.

By this explanation, it's more powergamey to put a gun in your pack or holster than it is to put on your waist, though, because you have time to get up before they can retrieve the weapon.

Further, while you can make an argument that the captain's antique shouldn't be grabbed immediately, sure, both they, the warden, HoP, and the HoS are issued a weapon in their locker as basic equipment. As a personal self defense weapon. Similar to how detectives start with one. No one gets on the detective for having his self defense weapon, and almost all of them carry the damn thing around, except unlike the laser pistols the other four get, it doesn't have a nonlethal setting. It's not really powergaming to be a high profile target capable of defending themselves, it's freaking common sense.

It shouldn't matter where the gun on your person is if it's very existence serves a purpose, i.e. self defense.

And if a captain is going to an active reported threat, the complaint people should be making should be 'why is the captain responding to it' not 'why is the captain not obeying the arbitrary gun visibility rules on our current code level'. Because if you're going somewhere where there is a reported threat, it's completely normal to bring a weapon.

0 people ever have ahelped seeing guns on belts because they felt it alarms them and is REAL SCARY, GUYS, no they ahelp because 'it's against the current rules that exist so gotta report em to the admins for le powergame'

Open carry is not something we want to encourage on code green because this is a civilian research station. The fact that people are not actually alarmed in real life by seeing you carry a gun around on your hip does not mean that it's not a phenomenom that exists within the station. I am not actually scared by anything that happens on the station in real life, but I am still expected to fear-rp or be creeped out.

And an ahelp about a rule being broken does not diminish the rule in place. I don't understand your position here. My character doesn't actually feel anything about whatever I'm doing because my character does not exist, so your argument of "no character is actually weirded out" could be applied to everything.

You can have your gun but don't run around with it on the hip. It's a pretty clear distinction. On an OOC level it also enforces the atmosphere of a civilian research station. Having armed men open-carrying around the station detracts from this atmosphere during standard operations.

By this explanation, it's more powergamey to put a gun in your pack or holster than it is to put on your waist, though, because you have time to get up before they can retrieve the weapon.

Yes, it's harder to disarm an officer, that's the whole point of the fucking item what next we're going to remove the jog because it's faster than a walk?

Further, while you can make an argument that the captain's antique shouldn't be grabbed immediately, sure, both they, the warden, HoP, and the HoS are issued a weapon in their locker as basic equipment. As a personal self defense weapon. Similar to how detectives start with one. No one gets on the detective for having his self defense weapon, and almost all of them carry the damn thing around, except unlike the laser pistols the other four get, it doesn't have a nonlethal setting. It's not really powergaming to be a high profile target capable of defending themselves, it's freaking common sense.

You know what the detective locker starts with? A holster to put your gun in.

Also you skipped the part where I said "without suspicion". A Captain or a HoP are perfectly valid to grab a weapon once they suspect they might be in danger.

It shouldn't matter where the gun on your person is if it's very existence serves a purpose, i.e. self defense.

Then why did you make this thread in the first place if it doesn't matter where you carry it.

And if a captain is going to an active reported threat, the complaint people should be making should be 'why is the captain responding to it' not 'why is the captain not obeying the arbitrary gun visibility rules on our current code level'. Because if you're going somewhere where there is a reported threat, it's completely normal to bring a weapon.

Fair, I'd attribute the reason why people seem to ahelp the second issue more to the fact that question WHY captain is somewhere is much harder than seeing them breaking regulations for no other reason than to look cool.

0 people ever have ahelped seeing guns on belts because they felt it alarms them and is REAL SCARY, GUYS, no they ahelp because 'it's against the current rules that exist so gotta report em to the admins for le powergame'

"It's against the rules so I ahelped them."

Yes this is how rules work Kaed, were you unaware of this?

The carry rules have nothing to do with laws. It's internal policy.

A weapon on code green should be secured in a holster as to not create alarm or distress in staff. Note that the policy also has an effect on how openly you can brandish the weapon: on code green, it should only be brandished when it is immediately necessary; on code red, you can openly patrol with the weapon in hand. So it has a way greater effect outside of the dilemma of, "Can I wear it on the belt or not."

I swung in to say something along these lines.

As someone who concealed carries religiously, I can say that there is a difference between open carrying and concealed even when everyone knows you have a gun on you anyways. When its immediately visible, and god forbid, in hand, no one feels comfortable or safe. Its all intimidation and unease. The holsters are acceptable for security but walking around with a gun tucked in your waistband doesn't make anyone feel safe. I guess what I mean to say is that its a comfort thing. Officers shouldn't have guns in their hand on patrol without a really good reason on code green. And I can't imagine why the captain, HoP, or science staff should need to be patrolling around with guns in the belt either.

By this explanation, it's more powergamey to put a gun in your pack or holster than it is to put on your waist, though, because you have time to get up before they can retrieve the weapon.

Yes, it's harder to disarm an officer, that's the whole point of the fucking item what next we're going to remove the jog because it's faster than a walk?

 

Further, while you can make an argument that the captain's antique shouldn't be grabbed immediately, sure, both they, the warden, HoP, and the HoS are issued a weapon in their locker as basic equipment. As a personal self defense weapon. Similar to how detectives start with one. No one gets on the detective for having his self defense weapon, and almost all of them carry the damn thing around, except unlike the laser pistols the other four get, it doesn't have a nonlethal setting. It's not really powergaming to be a high profile target capable of defending themselves, it's freaking common sense.

You know what the detective locker starts with? A holster to put your gun in.

Also you skipped the part where I said "without suspicion". A Captain or a HoP are perfectly valid to grab a weapon once they suspect they might be in danger.

 

It shouldn't matter where the gun on your person is if it's very existence serves a purpose, i.e. self defense.

Then why did you make this thread in the first place if it doesn't matter where you carry it.

 

And if a captain is going to an active reported threat, the complaint people should be making should be 'why is the captain responding to it' not 'why is the captain not obeying the arbitrary gun visibility rules on our current code level'. Because if you're going somewhere where there is a reported threat, it's completely normal to bring a weapon.

Fair, I'd attribute the reason why people seem to ahelp the second issue more to the fact that question WHY captain is somewhere is much harder than seeing them breaking regulations for no other reason than to look cool.

It is boggling my mind that you have managed to interpret my statement intended to espouse that it shouldn't be an issue to carry guns on your waist as a statement against carrying guns on your waist and question why I made this thread. I made it because people continue to act like waist gun is more unacceptable than a gun an holsters and backpacks.

So let me point something out to you about the system we have set up that is actually what is irritating me. Have you ever seen a cop's belt? Or an actual holster? When there is a gun in it, you can see it. It's there, in the holster. Sometimes there is a special clasp that discourages them from drawing it instantly or it being grabbed from them, but for the most part, no one on the station is ever actually carrying a concealed weapon except when they have it in their backpack. The only reason that people TREAT it as an out of sight weapon is because MECHANICALLY, you can't see what is inside an officer's belt container, or whether a holster is occupied. If there was a special belt slot item you could get that could hold a gun, I could put my gun in my belt slot every round and no one would pitch a fuss, even though, IC, the gun is there, on the belt (and maybe even some bullets, and grenades, if I'm an antag). People would see it. (Have you seen how big and clunky our taser gun is? There is no way that thing isn't visible on the sec belt, but people will scream bloody murder if you wear it outside of a belt)

So the real problem here is not that weapon visibility is ICly SCARY or ALARMING to the crew by being on your belt, it's because you have set up the rules as such that people are encouraged to point and squeal, or ahelp, the moment they see a weapon on any slot of your body on examine, if the code is currently green. Because they can mechanically PROVE you have weapon on your person, in a position that it shows up when you examine click on them, it is now a violation of weapon codes. If I was searched for some reason, as a HoP, and they found the laser pistol in my bag on code green, no one would bat an eye. It would not be confiscated from me as contraband. Because it's basic equipment for that role. Conversely, if you see a civilian walking around with a holster on, it is entirely reasonable for you to question whether they have a gun in there, even though you can't see it. Hostlers might not be illegal to own, but guns are for the general crew.

Shouldn't it be more important to determine who is authorized to actually carry a weapon, and whether this person is brandishing the weapon in an inappropriate and threatening way, than playing this insipid examine-visible gun gotcha game? You know, some actual internal logic to regulations?

Imagine for a moment someone took the time to make it so you could view on examine any gun objects inside someone's holsters or belts, as people would actually be able to see if this was The Real World. Would you force everyone to inconveniently carry all guns in their backpack just to maintain this flawed code green image you built? Holstering guns is illegal unless there's danger about, guys! Gotta be code blue to use em!

And we should NEVER be having situations where people are accused of powergaming because they pick up the basic equipment available in their job locker. It shouldn't matter if there are no threats active on the station whether you bring a sidearm you are issued as part of your JOB. Roles are issued those sidearms because they are potentially high profile targets carrying dangerous items and ID access, and forcing everyone except security members to act like they would never hold a gun on their person they were given as self-defense gear unless there was an active danger to their life is utterly arbitrary and frankly, a coddling antagonists sort of mentality, which is a statement I can honestly say I have never before uttered because usually I think people coddle the crew.

Powergaming should be defined as going out of your way to collect powerful shit from your department or others, like filling your hypospray with chloral, or grabbing a laser rifle from the armory 'just in case', or breaking the captain's antique out the moment the round starts. None of these things are basic equipment like a standard issue self defense weapon is.

So what I propose is this:

Green: Weapons should not be drawn unless there is some active threat in the area, and lethal arms are forbidden.

Blue/Yellow: Weapons can drawn while responding to known threat, lethals restricted (except for dealing with code Yellow stuff)

Red: Lethals allowed, weapons may be drawn at all times.

When a lot of people see cops who open carry it makes them feel vaguely uncomfortable. In many nations police officers do not even open carry. You are speaking from your personal experience within a self-enclosed bubble within your own culture. You are arguing from authority but you and me are both a minority within gun culture and the culture around gun culture.

Just because someone with a badge is doing it doesn't make it less weird for other people.

The mechanics are being enforced in the rules, and the rules have been explained. I find them fine personally. Not open carrying is a small, but necessary requirement to maintain the atmosphere of the station.

So let me point something out to you about the system we have set up that is actually what is irritating me. Have you ever seen a cop's belt? Or an actual holster? When there is a gun in it, you can see it. It's there, in the holster. Sometimes there is a special clasp that discourages them from drawing it instantly or it being grabbed from them, but for the most part, no one on the station is ever actually carrying a concealed weapon except when they have it in their backpack. The only reason that people TREAT it as an out of sight weapon is because MECHANICALLY, you can't see what is inside an officer's belt container, or whether a holster is occupied. If there was a special belt slot item you could get that could hold a gun, I could put my gun in my belt slot every round and no one would pitch a fuss, even though, IC, the gun is there, on the belt (and maybe even some bullets, and grenades, if I'm an antag). People would see it. (Have you seen how big and clunky our taser gun is? There is no way that thing isn't visible on the sec belt, but people will scream bloody murder if you wear it outside of a belt)

There is a good reason why all jobs that aren't supposed to carry a gun since round-start don't spawn with a viable holster or a secure belt.

That is because they aren't supposed to carry around a gun since round-start but instead get it during an emergency.

So the real problem here is not that weapon visibility is ICly SCARY or ALARMING to the crew by being on your belt, it's because you have set up the rules as such that people are encouraged to point and squeal, or ahelp, the moment they see a weapon on any slot of your body on examine, if the code is currently green. Because they can mechanically PROVE you have weapon on your person, in a position that it shows up when you examine click on them,

Why would you have a weapon in the first place on code green.

Meditate on this.

it is now a violation of weapon codes. If I was searched for some reason, as a HoP, and they found the laser pistol in my bag on code green, no one would bat an eye. It would not be confiscated from me as contraband. Because it's basic equipment for that role. Conversely, if you see a civilian walking around with a holster on, it is entirely reasonable for you to question whether they have a gun in there, even though you can't see it. Hostlers might not be illegal to own, but guns are for the general crew.

You can't search crew without a reason and a warrant on code green.

It's still illegal to carry a weapon in your backpack on code green, the fact security aren't enforcing it is their fault.

Shouldn't it be more important to determine who is authorized to actually carry a weapon, and whether this person is brandishing the weapon in an inappropriate and threatening way, than playing this insipid examine-visible gun gotcha game? You know, some actual internal logic to regulations?

Identification is usually done through observation, thus it's logical that a security officer would be able to say you aren't authorized to have a weapon if you have it on your belt as they can't see into your backpack.

Security also can't search your backpack without a warrant on code green, further suggesting that you shouldn't have a weapon in there in the first place.

None of your suggestions fix the "issues" you outline.

Imagine for a moment someone took the time to make it so you could view on examine any gun objects inside someone's holsters or belts, as people would actually be able to see if this was The Real World. Would you force everyone to inconveniently carry all guns in their backpack just to maintain this flawed code green image you built? Holstering guns is illegal unless there's danger about, guys! Gotta be code blue to use em!

Make a suggestion.

Security officers are supposed to have their guns holstered and secured. You aren't going to get yelled at for carrying a gun around because you're powergaming but because you're easy to disarm. Just like in real life.

The fact you have to hide weapons to be able to carry them on code green as the captain and HoP suggests you shouldn't be carrying them in the first place and that it's illegal.

If you want to carry a gun, raise to blue.

And we should NEVER be having situations where people are accused of powergaming because they pick up the basic equipment available in their job locker. It shouldn't matter if there are no threats active on the station whether you bring a sidearm you are issued as part of your JOB. Roles are issued those sidearms because they are potentially high profile targets carrying dangerous items and ID access, and forcing everyone except security members to act like they would never hold a gun on their person they were given as self-defense gear unless there was an active danger to their life is utterly arbitrary and frankly, a coddling antagonists sort of mentality, which is a statement I can honestly say I have never before uttered because usually I think people coddle the crew.

Multiple roles start with items in their default equipment they're not suppposed to be using since round-start.

We expect command to be better than the average player.

So what I propose is this:

Green: Weapons should not be drawn unless there is some active threat in the area, and lethal arms are forbidden.

Blue/Yellow: Weapons can drawn while responding to known threat, lethals restricted (except for dealing with code Yellow stuff)

Red: Lethals allowed, weapons may be drawn at all times.

The regulations are identical to the current ones.

The only difference is that Blue means you can already have your weapons displayed.

I don't really understand why or how powergaming entered the debate here. The rules are purely IC, roleplay driven. As already pointed out by folks here, an unsecured or openly carried (such as a rifle affixed to the chest piece) weapon generates discomfort and distress. A holster, while yes, visible, is degrees different from someone having a weapon haphazardly looped through their belt. There's also the matter that holsters are usually secured against involuntary access (also an IC consideration). It is literally horrible weapon safety to have a weapon looped through your belt as a Captain.

Quote

So what I propose is this:

Green: Weapons should not be drawn unless there is some active threat in the area, and lethal arms are forbidden.

Blue/Yellow: Weapons can drawn while responding to known threat, lethals restricted (except for dealing with code Yellow stuff)

Red: Lethals allowed, weapons may be drawn at all times.

Your proposition would not address the following points:

• Weapons affixed to chest (carbines and ions are non-lethal).
• "Lethal arms are forbidden" is not currently a thing, and making it a thing would be bad. For example a carp situation.
• "Restricted" is horribly vague and unenforceable as a result.
• "Lethals allowed" is also horribly vague and unenforceable.

And for the sake of completeness, here are the current alert level notifications:

• Green: All threats to the station have passed. Security may not have weapons visible, privacy laws are once again fully enforced.
• Blue: The station has received reliable information about possible hostile activity on the station. Security staff may have weapons visible, random searches are permitted.
• Red: There is an immediate serious threat to the station. Security may have weapons unholstered at all times. Random searches are allowed and advised.

Notice how it concretely and clearly regulates two parameters:

Weapon visibility, whether or not, for example, a rifle can be carried on the back or affixed to the chest; and weapon brandishing.

I was going to complain about the lack of concrete solution proposed by this post in the morning, but then I saw your concrete solution, and now I'm inclined to say that it suffers from tunnel vision.

Quote

 

Your proposition would not address the following points:

• Weapons affixed to chest (carbines and ions are non-lethal).
• "Lethal arms are forbidden" is not currently a thing, and making it a thing would be bad. For example a carp situation.
• "Restricted" is horribly vague and unenforceable as a result.
• "Lethals allowed" is also horribly vague and unenforceable.

 

And for the sake of completeness, here are the current alert level notifications:

• Green: All threats to the station have passed. Security may not have weapons visible, privacy laws are once again fully enforced.
• Blue: The station has received reliable information about possible hostile activity on the station. Security staff may have weapons visible, random searches are permitted.
• Red: There is an immediate serious threat to the station. Security may have weapons unholstered at all times. Random searches are allowed and advised.

 

Notice how it concretely and clearly regulates two parameters:

Weapon visibility, whether or not, for example, a rifle can be carried on the back or affixed to the chest; and weapon brandishing.

 

I was going to complain about the lack of concrete solution proposed by this post in the morning, but then I saw your concrete solution, and now I'm inclined to say that it suffers from tunnel vision.

Alright, then let me posit this: You claim here we have to make the regulations as clear as possible, and yet, from these regulations, I am already seeing two things that are being extrapolated even though absolutely no where are they actually spelled out

-Non-security members are held to these regulations that specifically indicate only security members (Why are captains and HoP held to these rules that only indicate security members?)

-Non-security members are not permitted to have weapons at all unless it is code blue.

On that note.

Quote

Quote

And we should NEVER be having situations where people are accused of powergaming because they pick up the basic equipment available in their job locker. It shouldn't matter if there are no threats active on the station whether you bring a sidearm you are issued as part of your JOB. Roles are issued those sidearms because they are potentially high profile targets carrying dangerous items and ID access, and forcing everyone except security members to act like they would never hold a gun on their person they were given as self-defense gear unless there was an active danger to their life is utterly arbitrary and frankly, a coddling antagonists sort of mentality, which is a statement I can honestly say I have never before uttered because usually I think people coddle the crew.

 

Multiple roles start with items in their default equipment they're not suppposed to be using since round-start.

We expect command to be better than the average player.

Using =/= having in possession.

Show me where this is listed as a regulation literally anywhere, that default self-defense equipment cannot be carried on your person. Because I've never seen it, and it sounds like you're just sort of making this up as a personal opinion?

Maybe, even if you don't want to consider my ideas at this point, you should consider making the in-game regulations more clear, instead of making up extra shit on top of them that is just assumed to be there but not actually enforceable in any sense.

Though I guess I would grant that weapons are easier to disarm just sitting on your belt.

It's not really that complicated, pretty much everyone else gets it.

For a very simple and plain explanation, the bartender isn't allowed to take a gun out of his department either even though he starts with it. However you'll be hard-pressed to find security officers arresting the bartender when he's using the gun in his department.

But you're right I'll probably just talk to the CCIA and specify that a Captain and HoP aren't allowed to walk around with their gun unless code blue has been declared.

"So why exactly is it a bad to have a weapon on your belt, but not in a hostler. There is 0 mechanical difference between these two things other than 'you can see the weapon'. It's one click to put them into your hand."

Actually there's a major difference, the holster item lets me use my H key on my keyboard to instantly draw and fire exactly where my mouse cursor is pointing. While if it were in a belt I would have to move my cursor to click the gun then move it back to what I want to shoot, the holster is much faster.

Alright, then let me posit this: You claim here we have to make the regulations as clear as possible, and yet, from these regulations, I am already seeing two things that are being extrapolated even though absolutely no where are they actually spelled out

-Non-security members are held to these regulations that specifically indicate only security members (Why are captains and HoP held to these rules that only indicate security members?)

-Non-security members are not permitted to have weapons at all unless it is code blue.

The only reason non-security aren't included in that is because ICly non-security aren't expected to be out searching for threats. This could be made clearer in the alert messages or elsewhere, but civilians, even command, should not be reacting proactively to threats (in the sense that they are physically combating it.)

The issue posed by weapons being visible vs holstered is not one of powergaming, or how practical it is to strip someone of their weapon, or even how easy it is to draw the weapon. It's not a matter of powergaming, but, as Skull said, an IC regulation based on a believable internal policy of companies to not make an uncomfortable work environment. The closest policy I can relate it to is about uniform regulations: it is a policy that any company in NanoTrasen's position would feasibly have.

Now, a command member, barring in some cases the HoS, who is actively searching for threats with a gun on their hip? That can be construed as validhunting. That is an OOC issue and irrespective of IC policy on gun visibility that will be looked at by an administrator.

As for heads of staff carrying self-defense weapons from their locker; whether they do or not is primarily up to their individual character. It is expected of them, however, ICly that they would follow policy and have the weapon tucked away unless it was absolutely necessary, and OOCly that they are not validhunting. A head of staff carrying a self-defense weapon on station when there are no reported threats should not be expecting to use their weapon.

I don't think IC or OOC policy on weapon carry rules needs to change.

Alright, then let me posit this: You claim here we have to make the regulations as clear as possible, and yet, from these regulations, I am already seeing two things that are being extrapolated even though absolutely no where are they actually spelled out

-Non-security members are held to these regulations that specifically indicate only security members (Why are captains and HoP held to these rules that only indicate security members?)

-Non-security members are not permitted to have weapons at all unless it is code blue.

That's a relatively simple point to answer!

If no change is outlined, then the already existing restrictions and liberties apply. This is to say, that these alert level notifications affect only how security can carry and use weaponry. All other components adhere to whatever regulation they adhere to already, unchanged. Which is sort of wise, IMO: no one but security should have the necessity to brandish weapons outside of instances of imminent danger.

Now, this might be a point for considering what those other regulations are. And how weapons carrying is regulated by CorpRegs and Station Directives. But if those clearly mandate a certain arrangement, then that arrangement is to be followed, by non-security staff, regardless of alert level.

I don't really think that much clarification is needed here, carrying weapons on your belt/suit storage would be allowed under blue, while having them in your bag/holster should be limited to green.

Voting for dismissal.

Moving to rejected due to inactivity and dismissal by Alb.