I'm fairly certain that Items will not have RDMS tags. They will simply be items in your inventory, much like or, but usable. When you think about it, there is no need for this, and it would be ridiculous. RDMS will be for constructs and containers. If you don't want someone to have access to the guns, you lock the gun case. Also, I don't think having items tagged as possessions is a good idea either. The RDMS can, and probably should have an ownership tag, so that when someone hacks into it, it flags them as a thief for however long or to whomever. As far as breaking into a case, I think that shooting, or blowing it up, should destroy the case along with everything in it. Much like blowing a hole in a ship will destroy what is blown up, you can salvage what of the ship you didnt blow up, granted you either hack, or destroy the core. Similarly, you should be able to hack the crate. However, I would also say for those that don't want to go down the hacking skill tree, allowing one to use a crowbar to pry the thing open would be a good idea. The container is damaged in the process, becoming unlock-able. Perhaps the goods inside are damaged by this, that's optional, and reasonable as a punishment for not having the hacking skill. But I feel this system is fair, and balanced. As far as blueprints, that's a little trickier. If you sell a blueprint copy to someone, they can print the construct. If you have the printed copy disable the core so it cant make new copies, then the player can simply destroy the core and make a new one, thus allowing Blueprint making again. You cannot disallow the replacement of a core, because then you cant repair constructs that have been core-disabled. One option is to disable basic LUA code creation for cores being placed in existing structures. Thus requiring manual reprogramming. If you could somehow make basic LUA code have a tag or trigger allowing the making of blueprints, that cant be reproduced by manual programming, then problem solved. Simply make 'non-Master Copy' Blueprints have the 'Enable Blueprint creation' disabled in the core of the construct. Otherwise, it's a tricky situation.