Wouldn't they want more guns in citizens hands in case Seattle got invaded?

Or you could say "You're right. Most clubs have specific places to check weapons upon entry."

Actually Fortune, why would they do that? Clubs have enough problems keeping track of their coat/hat room and now they have to babysit your weapon too? I'm sorry but, that's absolutely ridiculous. Simpler to have the patrons not show up with one. As a club owner, if I lost a little bit of money because the gun maniacs wouldn't leave their gear at home, well I'd console myself in the knowledge that I can advertise a relatively safe/fun place to hang around. In otherwords, make even more money in what's considered to be dark/dangerous times.

Sahandrian's response is pretty good in the right context. Again, the assumption is you have a permit or what passes for one and a gun that LS is going to spot check. Hell, if you're and Redmond (Touristville) and they spot your handgun but aren't waving it around like a maniac they probably won't hassle you so much. You can still be turned away at the door once you get to private property or even executed on-site upon sight if you stray into AAA extra-territoriality. Anybody else remember the passcards from the Denver Box, particularly for the Aztlan/Aztechnology sector?

Not really. You have to remember that Shadowrun's world is a lot rougher than ours. Clubs in Downtown and the fancier areas probably wouldn't, but I could definately see that happening in some of the less gentrified areas. And if a club can't keep track of just coats I'd say they were a bunch of bloody idiots and wonder how long they could stay in business for.

Look man, I always argue for context. We basically agree that in Downtown, checking guns at the door is just not an option. At the other extreme, I could see a "pull and pay" policy (i.e. you pull it, the bouncer makes you pay) in a joint in the Barrens but outside of Touristville, how many functioning clubs are there in the Z zones? In social situations, you even get penalties for wearing visible body armor. Why be so sure a clubowner is going to accomodate weapons? If you cater to specialized clientele, perhaps it's appropriate. But generally, it just opens a can of worms that 99% of club owners don't want to deal with.

Don't slough off the coats. A typical tactic for fire marshals enforcing city code in regards to occupancy is to count coat check slips and subtract staff as a rough estimate of how many people are in the club. Add firearms of various calibers and sizes (presumably mostly pistols) and you have a potentially explosive situation. Also, Civil Right's legislation being what it is, a service provided to one must be provided for all, every single occupant in a club has the right to have their coat/gun checked if you allow/provide that service. Depending on the size of a club, the costs could be prohibitive maintaining enough gun storage for everybody and paying someone certified by the city/county/metroplex to watch them to make sure they are not stolen. In campaigns where guns are scarce, the best thing to do to arm yourself becomes infilitrating a club and making off with the gear....

I suspect that in areas where a gun policy is not iterated, you actually get to keep it. And if you act up, you pay a penalty for it... Sorry, logistically it's a nightmare, and the original question asked for a generality, not specific exceptions..

And yes FlakJacket, clubs do have a high turnonver rate that can be ascribed to just about anything, including poor service.

Considering the amount of times this exact type of thing is mentioned in canon, I would say it is relatively common to check weapons at nightclubs. Even the ones Downtown.

Once again, canon? The only things canon are the rules. Now I know this opens up a big can of worms debating what is canon but I personally don't consider an adventure supplement as canon, particularly since... well... they're particular rather than general. I'll admit to not having a whole lot of the supplements, but I do have the rulebooks from all three editions and a few adventures/supplents from all three. What I have noticed is this, authors very often conflict about what is generally acceptable in 2063 society and even how shadowruns are done. In some of the supplements, a Johnson talks to the whole team, in others s/he wants to talk only to a member of the team considered the rep or even only to the team's fixer... Things like that. If you remember the classic Food Fight, when you go into the Stuffer Shack they have a broken weapons detector that only works some of the time. What I get from that is in general, reputable places/business tend to want to deter people from bringing in weapons, in this case specifically so they have time to hit the panic button in case they're robbed. On the otherhand, I know I have around here somewhere an adventure/supplement where there's a small restraunt which is like a Casablanca, if you will, for the major crime orgs. You go in and you see Yaks, Mob guys, Vory etc... sitting around eating and not killing each other. It's strictly taboo and the establishment does check their weapons at the door and then store them in a secure room. But again, that's a very specialized situation.

I see SR 2063 as a place where personal rights are being limited, not expanded and where individual interests are being subordinated to corporate profits. Imagine if Ares owned Monaco Bay in the future, and they had a problem with someone at the door, being uncooperative with security. (He thinks his holdout pistol isn't a big enough deal to turnover or is too stylish to be checked into a grubby security locker) Being a AAA, they can just make up their own rules and waste the fool. But that's bad for biz. Why not just avoid the problem by making sure everyone understands that weaponry be it guns or knives, just isn't getting in the door. That way, when there is a problem, your business had the moral high ground if anything transpires.

Then again, I wonder how many liquor licenses would be issued to clubs without extraterritoriality benefits by the city, if the granting authority knows they are accomodating a legal occupancy worth of guns. Frankly, it just seems like a bad idea. Throw on top of this that Seattle is on the "LEFT" coast, the outlook for carrying firearms everywhere you go is pretty poor.

I'm not trying to be a bad guy here, it's just my opinion. So I say again, it depends on the context. The security level of an area should give a general guideline and for the most part, if what your packing isn't seen by somebody or detected by a scanner, you won't be challenged anyway.

Johnsons are people too, they might have different ways of how they prefer to do business. There may even be cases where two groups of runners would be brought into the same room and the Johnson would end with, "Whichever team gets the goods to me, gets full compensation; the other gets some compensation, but significantly smaller."

There is no set of laws about how runners are hired, just some basics that are usually consistant.

I disgaree and so does pretty much every "canon" (By the book definition) example in SR set before us. Even hotels like the Hilton downtown check weapons and have a magscanner and chemsniffer you must pass through. Makes the guests feel safer if people cannot bring in weapons.

I think the point here is there is a semantic difference between Checking weapons and Checking for weapons. The Hilton can check weapons at the door, but whether they say "You can't stay here, sir." or take your weapon and put it in storage, is a big difference.