As long as said person remains on the sovereign territory of their employer I'd agree 100%; however, with corporate balkanization that has occurred in the 6th World even Lone Star/Knight Errant are treading on foreign soil to accomplish their daily beat patrol. So I'd judge that the UCAS might require that LS/KE personnel be licensed within the UCAS bureaucracy in order to Lawfully carry firearms and security armor.

I would expect that Lone Star/Knight Errant requires, as part of their contracts to do security, that their officers be granted blanket authority to carry any required arms and armor to do their jobs.




Anyway, I fall into the "Abstract it into Lifestyle" camp re: licenses. There's enjoyable amounts of granularity (Oh, how I love me some gear porn,) and then there's annoying ones that serve only to give the GM an excuse to be a dick. ("Ah-HAH, but you don't have a license to carry the holdout pistol you picked up off that ganger and are planning to sell to your fence next time you see him! Mr. Lone Star is going to run your ass in for illegal possession of a weapon.")

If a country or company contracts LS as police, that contract should logically include the privileges normally afforded to police. And if the contract says that patrols should be unarmed or not carry anything heavier than a pistol, a permit of the individual officer would still be overruled by that contract.

However, the bureaucratic fees for the Licenses would help give UCAS and smaller municipalities a purpose.

I want a balance between the two :

I want the Runners to be afraid to carry illegal weapons and gear, and for there to be potential for repercussions.
As GM, I want a mechanic to realise the risk and the penalty.

Without the former, players can just walk around toting PACs
and if I try to enforce the rule (to my agenda, not being a dick and making it every LS/KE suddenly psychically knows you are carrying)

How about a similar rule to Defaulting ?
Buy a license/permit = automatic success or at least reduced risk of being fined or abducted by the cops

Without a LIC you Default to your Fake or Real SIN (with appropriate modifier)

Thus a Runner masquerading as a Body guard with an illegal weapon is met by police.
"You have a permit to conceal carry Sir?"
"Uh ... no, it's in my other pants (TrollMod) ™ Officer"
Officer looks suspicious "So what are you doing?"
"Well, I'm bodyguarding Mr Johnson here" winks at face
"OK Sir, I believe you, lets see your Identification please"
"Uh-oh !" .... officers head is vaporised

Well, if licenses are tied to your SIN there is no physical license you can leave in your other trousers (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Very true (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

But, besides the obvious untruths of our runner trying to outwit a patrolman.

Does the defaulting mechanic satisfy anyones quandaries over licences and SINs ?

I.e.
A runner with low charisma and etiquette "can" buy a licence if he feels it necessary on his current run
It is then tied to whichever SIN he uses (real or fake) indefinately.
OR
He relies on his charm and fast talking to default to his SIN, hoping his .. Job, background, incredibly well endowed bank balance or just dumb luck.. Will help the patrolman decide to let him slip.

It's probably fair to assume that the average beat cop does not know the full ins and outs of every law, which leaves plenty of room to claim that your occupation or the gun you are carrying are exempted from the permit under Statue A 38. But I would handle it as a simple social test, with a good SIN providing the "plausible evidence" modifier.

Or the cop does what all police do, default back to technology or process.

in other words, pull out the scanner

in this case then we have rating SIN + complementary dice in etiquette .. vs. scanner.