I don't mean to imply that at all. As you point out, it's easy for a GM to make sure there's an appropriate aspect.

What I keep coming back to is, really, DFRPG seems to me a game that tries to eliminate straight GM fiat as much as possible. So I figure when a GM says something like, "You can't bring a sword in there," the player will ask "Why?" The answer is usually along the lines of, "This place doesn't allow weapons," which is more or less the same as saying "This place has the aspect 'No Weapons Allowed'."

The player is going to want to keep his weapon--after all, it's got his apex skill on it, and he's invested these stunts that make him very powerful with this weapon. So what happens when the player wants to keep the weapon? Even if it's not a compel, the player can spend a fate point for a declaration to keep it...which works out to about the same thing as buying out of a compel.

Lavecki: +1 to the attack isn't gamebreaking, but it's the highest an attack stunt can be, for what I see as extremely easy circumstances--in effect, it's a flat +1 bonus to the skill. Same with the stress bonus--it's going to be used in the vast majority of rolls, and stunts are not supposed to be something that adds a bonus every time. It's supposed to be situational, and to my reading, just the weapon type is not nearly rare enough of a "situation" to justify the full bonus.
No, the rules are perfectly clear that you can issue compels for scene aspects. It just doesn't say it in the bit I quoted.

If I'm not misunderstanding you, the difference between the two scenarios is this:

Scenario A: The group is trying to get into a night club where they suspect a murderous WCV is hiding hanging out.  The GM places the scene aspect "heavy security" and compels every player with physical weapons to give them up at the door.  He can either take the FP or buy out.

Scenario B: The GM places no scene aspect.  Instead as the players try and enter an npc bouncer says "sorry guys but I can't let you in with weapons.  You'll have to give them up  while you're inside.". At this point the players either oblidge to give up their weapons, refuse and not be allowed in, or make a declairation by rolling or spending a FP to tag for effect to get inside with their weapons.

The difference is in B there is no offer of a FP.  The player has to spend one or not and come up with a different plan.  scenario A actually limits the players options of giving up the weapons, or buying out and entering with weapons in hand.

Given your dislike for stunt stacking and near flat bonuses from stunts.  I would figure youwould be all for making players spend FP to keep said weapons for the scene.

I do tend to agree with you on the notion of a stunts only requirement being that you have your weapon of choice on hand.  It basically means the only time you won't have the weapon close at hand is when the GM prys it away from you for a scene.  That gets really tiresome and contrived for both player a GM real fast.  I usually require a secondary condition to be met with stunts like that.

One I came up with for a player in my group allowed her a bonus to defense rolls when she had her sword AND when being attacked by a melée action.  This basically made her a fantastic defender against close combat foes, but a sitting duck againts firearms and evocation. 

Buying out of a compel does not necessarily mean that the complication of the Compel does not happen.
It can simply mean that it somehow doesn't negatively impact their activities despite happening exactly as described.

So they go through airport security, having left their weapons behind.
Sometime before combat becomes reasonably likely, they manage to bribe a security agent, gaining access to new weapons which sufficiently suit their purposes.
Or, as Harry, Michael, and Sanya manage in the novels, they find a way around security and never have to leave their weapons behind in the first place.
Or something else creative that my brain is too mushy to come up with right now.

Beat me to it.  Buying out of a compel doesn't negate the situation, it's up to the group as a whole to come up with what happens next. Maybe a character with holy powers just doesn't trip the metal dectectors.  Maybe a player who has an aspect "I know a guy for that" knows the head of security there.  Maybe a particularly stealthy player finds a way to get around security entirely.

Like most things in this game, it's a matter of how creative the group can be.

So Venom has powers without the suit?

I thought Venom was the suit.

And what's Venom like as a "person"? Is it a pure combat character? Is it smart? Does it have morals?

PS: Does Venom shoot webs?

Sorry I should of worded that better.  The suit provides all the powers, I meant it also let him do things spider man cannot do.

Classic Venom was mostly a combatant, but he also was cruel and patient.  He like torment Peter with threats and mind games.  Showing up at his aunts house pretending to be Peters friend, stalking his wife, ect. Basically making his as miserable as possible before finally making his move.

Though he never did anything like this to anyone else.  He was known to occasionally save spider-mans life because HE claimed he was the one who decides when spider man dies.  He also at times let spider man live when he could have easily killed him because the lives of innocents were at risk.

The alien symbiot itself had a love/hate relationship towards spider man.  It desperately wanted to be joined with spidey, but hates him for rejecting it.  It's assumed that's why it emulated spider mans powers after taking on a new host.

Originally Venmon did shoot webs iirc, bit as the shape shifting powers became more prominent he started using that to simulate webs.  Which was more like thick black tendrils.

I'd be incredibly hesitant about applying compels to anything but Aspects. Aspects are the most important elements of a character; their driving narrative force. That's why Fate Points apply to them.

If a character has an Aspect relating to a particular weapon, then by all means fire off the compels where appropriate. But if Guns McShooter has to leave his weapons behind to get into a night club, he doesn't get a Fate Point. In fact, I'd be more inclined to use compels to make a character refuse to leave their treasured weapon behind, because that causes much more interesting problems than simply being at a tactical disadvantage.

The risk of losing a weapon or not having one to hand isn't a compel - It's the price you pay for the fact you got a Physical Stress bonus without paying Refresh for it.

I tend to agree, if it's not aspect related you shouldn't get a FP.  At that point having to give up your gun to get into a night club it's not a compel, it's just role-playing.

However if a player is going to stack a bunch of stunts that are all conditional to their weapon, I would probably require them to have an aspect that relates to the weapon.

And the specter of "you're doing it wrong" raises its head once again.

Not so much "you're doing it wrong" as Turing to say that the road to success doesn't have to be a giant blinking neon arrow that always points in the same direction.

Though I will say that if someone seeing failure or setbacks in any way as total failure, and thus not only expects to never fail but would say it's the GMs fault fr putting them in a situation where failure was even possible?  Them yes they are definitly doing it wrong.

Oh yeah, I've seen that one.  It seems pricey to me but honestly I wouldn't know.

Funny i said the same thing when I first saw it.  But really it gives the same benefits as sponsored magic for the same cost.  You're basically getting a refinement for free in exchange for having an exceedingly narrow magical focus.

Coming back to this.. Vairelome's initial explanation for crafting helped me to understand or at least focus at the correct rules. However, I have one more issue that I'm not sure how to interpret. From the end of Ritual power (p182 YS):

What does the bolded bit mean in Ritual(Crafting) context?

I don't think it would really apply.  As your theme IS crafting, it's basically the inverse of the concept.  You cant do anything but craft items using Ritual, where as say an Ectomancer who wanted to craft an item would have to keep the item in the theme of Ectomancy.

I can't link it because I'm on my phone, but there I'd a power on the custom power thread I like to bring up when this question comes up. 

I believe it's listed as Superior Pyromancy, though it can apply to any element.  While it may not bring specalists totally up to par with a Wizard, it let's them do things Wizards can't normally do.  Such as Thaumaturgy at Evocation speed, 1 point of refinement in power and control, and the ability to take sponsor debt.  It costs 3 or 4 refresh I think.  Nothng game breaking, but it does allow specalists to diverge from their wizard counterparts a bit.