Rust armorer found guilty

[Tobra]

Because that is not a priority for that industry

Originally Posted by id10t

And if that is the case, there may be multiple CA firearms laws broken regarding the transfer of both a firearm and ammo...

Maybe, but that would not matter at all, because, California laws do not apply in New Mexico.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Tobra

Because that is not a priority for that industry


Maybe, but that would not matter at all, because, California laws do not apply in New Mexico.

[craigster59]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

So... a multi-billion dollar per year industry. Spends an ungodly amount of money on sets, props, special affects, and pays its actors tens of millions of dollars.

Why, on God's green earth, have they not yet arrived upon a standardized process for rendering all guns used in filming non-functional? From an engineering/technical point of view, this is an exceedingly cheap and simple problem to solve.

There are times hard rubber guns are used (stunts) and Airsoft guns (wide shots) and electric guns (that produce a muzzle flash). Sometimes actors prefer a blank firing weapon for reality or "method acting" reasons.

Using blank firing guns are safe when you have a competent Armorer on set whenever firearms are used and follow the hard and steadfast rule that LIVE AMMUNITION SHOULD NEVER BE BROUGHT ONTO A STUDIO LOT OR LOCATION.

Most prop weapons are unable to fire live ammo. Unfortunately in the "Rust" case they chose to use a real weapon as a prop. That was their first mistake.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by craigster59

There are times hard rubber guns are used (stunts) and Airsoft guns (wide shots) and electric guns (that produce a muzzle flash). Sometimes actors prefer a blank firing weapon for reality or "method acting" reasons.

Using blank firing guns are safe when you have a competent Armorer on set whenever firearms are used and follow the hard and steadfast rule that LIVE AMMUNITION SHOULD NEVER BE BROUGHT ONTO A STUDIO LOT OR LOCATION.

Most prop weapons are unable to fire live ammo. Unfortunately in the "Rust" case they chose to use a real weapon as a prop. That was their first mistake.

I guess it would be well neigh impossible to enforce any sort of standards or rules across this industry regarding what sorts of prop or real guns are used for which purposes.

I believe you folks are beholden to OSHA regulations regarding workplace safety, correct? It was always amazing to me just how detailed and finitely they are written. Maybe amending them, adding something about the film industry's use of prop guns, could be something to consider.

We all know how enthusiastically many celebrities in this industry lobby for "gun safety" out in the real world, but I guess it's not all that surprising that they have never considered their own industry. But, then again, how enforceable would any such regulations be, with egos like Mr. Baldwin's so ubiquitous across this industry. Rules are for everyone else. Like the live ammo rule you mention.

[The Synergizer]

It was only a matter of time before something became Trump's fault!!

[javadog]

Perhaps they could manufacture prop guns that used a new, bespoke type of ammunition that is not compatible with any actual guns. Then, if they only made blanks for those prop guns, we wouldn’t have this problem.

[sc_rufctr]

Originally Posted by The Synergizer

It was only a matter of time before something became Trump's fault!!

No doubt but The Donald lives in Baldballs Head (both? ) full time & rent free so that was always going to happen.

The one thing I really like about all of this: The world finally gets to see what a POS AB truly is.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by javadog

Perhaps they could manufacture prop guns that used a new, bespoke type of ammunition that is not compatible with any actual guns. Then, if they only made blanks for those prop guns, we wouldn’t have this problem.

Exactly. What earthly reason is there for a multi-billion dollar per year industry to have not done precisely this?

These prop guns would not even have to be fully manufactured from the ground up as such. Existing firearms could have just a few components swapped for slightly altered parts that would render them non-functional.

For example, no more than the barrel would need to be substituted in most pistols, rifles, and carbines. The "movie" barrel would have a chamber just slightly too short, so it could not accept the "real" version of whatever caliber it mimics. The bore would be far too small to allow a bullet of the caliber represented to pass through it, being rebated at the muzzle to look real from the front. Revolvers would require barrel and cylinder replacement.

Ammunition could even be manufactured for the most part on existing equipment. It's easy enough to produce dies for existing equipment that produces shorter ammunition. "Bullets" could be any of a myriad of materials, all meant to just powder upon detonation of the powder charge, yet look very "real" on camera.

None of this would be difficult. None of this would be "expensive" in movie industry terms. Yet I bet none of this ever happens, nor anything at all like it. And I bet that, someday, this happens again.

[id10t]

Originally Posted by Tobra

Because that is not a priority for that industry


Maybe, but that would not matter at all, because, California laws do not apply in New Mexico.

In which case, scratch the state laws and Federal laws kick in regarding the transfer of a pistol to an out-of-state resident (no legal way to do it)

[berettafan]

Originally Posted by javadog

Perhaps they could manufacture prop guns that used a new, bespoke type of ammunition that is not compatible with any actual guns. Then, if they only made blanks for those prop guns, we wouldn’t have this problem.

That sure seems like a good idea.

[john70t]

[please correct any which are wrong]

My understanding is that Hollywood is the largest collective owner of real functional weapons in the USA outside the military.
(including Title2 full auto)

'Blanks' are cartridges without bullets and most gunpowder. Primer usually.

Automatic-actions still need back pressure to cycle them.
Do they use barrel plugs or restricted barrels?

Hollywood has an excellent track record considering it's history.
Are there standardized laws and specifications governing the hundreds of thousands+ of prop guns out there?
Can prop guns be designed in different ways piecemeal?

[Arizona_928]

Originally Posted by john70t

[please correct any which are wrong]

My understanding is that Hollywood is the largest collective owner of real functional weapons in the USA outside the military.
(including Title2 full auto)

'Blanks' are cartridges without bullets and most gunpowder. Primer usually.

Automatic-actions still need back pressure to cycle them.
Do they use barrel plugs or restricted barrels?

Hollywood has an excellent track record considering it's history.
Are there standardized laws and specifications governing the hundreds of thousands+ of prop guns out there?
Can prop guns be designed in different ways piecemeal?

prop guns that are blank firing only are not subject to federal law.

[craigster59]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Exactly. What earthly reason is there for a multi-billion dollar per year industry to have not done precisely this?

These prop guns would not even have to be fully manufactured from the ground up as such. Existing firearms could have just a few components swapped for slightly altered parts that would render them non-functional.

For example, no more than the barrel would need to be substituted in most pistols, rifles, and carbines. The "movie" barrel would have a chamber just slightly too short, so it could not accept the "real" version of whatever caliber it mimics. The bore would be far too small to allow a bullet of the caliber represented to pass through it, being rebated at the muzzle to look real from the front. Revolvers would require barrel and cylinder replacement.

Ammunition could even be manufactured for the most part on existing equipment. It's easy enough to produce dies for existing equipment that produces shorter ammunition. "Bullets" could be any of a myriad of materials, all meant to just powder upon detonation of the powder charge, yet look very "real" on camera.

None of this would be difficult. None of this would be "expensive" in movie industry terms. Yet I bet none of this ever happens, nor anything at all like it. And I bet that, someday, this happens again.

First thing, you have 3 deaths in over one hundred years of filmmaking and hundreds of thousands of rounds fired. Not a bad percentage compared to other industries.

Also, these things are already and have been happening for years. I posted a video awhile back in this thread covering some of the modifications done to film guns.

When filming in confined or indoor spaces with semi auto guns you don’t want to use full blank loads. You use quarter loads but then you come across the problem of not enough pressure to cycle the firearm. That’s where you have duplicate guns made specifically to cycle different loads.

These are all available to any legitimate
Production company that is willing to spend the money and practice safety first. Unfortunately Rust wasn’t such a company. My friend said when he interviewed for Rust he could tell they were low budget. When he mentioned renting the guns from Hollywood they showed him a locked closet filled with dusty and dirty guns and said “This is what you have here, make it work”.

That’s when he passed on the show and he’s mighty glad he did.

[Jeff Higgins]

Thanks guys. I rather suspected that there just had to be dedicated prop guns like you describe available. I would imagine (hope?) that as popular as Westerns are, that the typical guns used in them would be available in these modified prop gun configurations.

Which, of course, further begs the question - why on Earth would there ever be a real, functioning firearm on any set for any reason? That is, by the way, a rhetorical question. You guys have done a great job of answering it already.

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by id10t

In which case, scratch the state laws and Federal laws kick in regarding the transfer of a pistol to an out-of-state resident (no legal way to do it)

Pretty sure California is the only state where you can't let someone use a gun you own.


Absolutely sure it does not violate any Federal laws.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Tobra

Pretty sure California is the only state where you can't let someone use a gun you own.


Absolutely sure it does not violate any Federal laws.

Washington is now right there with you, Toby. We passed an Initiative several years ago, I-1639, that makes any transfer of a firearm illegal unless it goes through an FFL. It is worded in such a way as to prohibit my sharing of one of my firearms with you if we go to the range together for some shooting fun. Under this new law, that is technically a "transfer", and must be made through an FFL. Insanity. Absolutely unenforced by anyone, but still on the books, which simply means if you piss 'em off badly enough, they can whip it out on you.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by john70t

[please correct any which are wrong]

My understanding is that Hollywood is the largest collective owner of real functional weapons in the USA outside the military.
(including Title2 full auto)

'Blanks' are cartridges without bullets and most gunpowder. Primer usually.

Automatic-actions still need back pressure to cycle them.
Do they use barrel plugs or restricted barrels?

Hollywood has an excellent track record considering it's history.
Are there standardized laws and specifications governing the hundreds of thousands+ of prop guns out there?
Can prop guns be designed in different ways piecemeal?

Well, while blanks do have a bullet, there is still a Whad that hurts like hell if you are shot with one at relatively close range, and yes, it will leave a mark...

[911Ghia]

https://www.thesun.ie/news/2172622/extraordinary-story-of-jon-erik-hexum-the-actor-who-died-playing-russian-roulette-on-his-own-tv-show-and-whose-donated-heart-saved-a-las-vegas-pimps-life/

Rich

[id10t]

Originally Posted by Tobra

Pretty sure California is the only state where you can't let someone use a gun you own.


Absolutely sure it does not violate any Federal laws.

If the transfer of the pistol took place in a state that not all parties were residents of, then fed violation. Only way to legally get pistol for out-of-state is via FFL transfer in their home state. Long guns you can do, if transfer is legal in both state of transfer and resident state of buyer, but again it has to be via FFL. And California is one of the two states that you can't be a resident of and buy in a different state.

Point being... even without the death and a N degree murder/homicide/manslaughter there is a serious felony lurking in the wings.

[T77911S]

involuntary manslaughter at the best.
i was thinking they will cover it up because of his fame but it seems like Hollywood is dropping him like a bad hooker