This is a story of specific facts, and how the interpretation of those facts could either lead to lengthy imprisonment for an individual or just a costly bill to an uninvolved 3rd party.

the purpose of the armorer is to provide a safe weapon inspected by an expert to a person that is not an expert.
the actor is not expected to know how to determine if a gun is safe.

if I had a gun to a child to look at and the gun goes off, is it the childs fault or my fault for not checking to see if its empty.

(I used a child because that's what actors are. :))

Well, any adult handling any firearm under any circumstance is responsible for what happens with that firearm.

It doesn’t seem reasonable to me that actors are somehow exempt from personal responsibility while handling a firearm and some9n gets killed.

If the child was an adult and hired someone else specifically to do the job of handing him the gun and KNEW you were not that person...well i'd say said child carries a lot of responsibility.

I have said, I don't think AB will get charged as the shooter.
but, if the gun was handed to him by someone else other than the armorer then perhaps yes.
he should know as an actor and producer not to accept a gun from anyone other than the armorer. I don't know the laws and rules for guns on a set. just what I am hearing and reading
yes I think he will get charged as producer.

I also think AB will find a way out.

I don’t think there are any laws specifying an exemption from negligence with firearms. Baldwin would like people, specifically a jury, to think so, though.

Interesting point.

Do union rules and SOP's override common law and responsibility?

I guess we'll find out.

That or my wife is the armorer and I had no idea the pistol was loaded when I shot my neighbor.

Andrew Branca has written several articles about it, here’s one regarding the New Mexico laws as they apply to this situation.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/10/legal-analysis-alec-baldwin-situation-beginning-to-look-a-lot-like-manslaughter/

Well, AB seems to have ABC on his side. Maybe the exclusive interview rights given to little Georgie had a stipulation that a follow up special preaching his innocence had to be included in the deal. Tune in Friday and all will be revealed.

https://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/2020-inside-investigation-friday-98c-abc-stream-hulu-81633491?fbclid=IwAR0hgp11sgrQR297f0OnO9kEKc-z8dCD9Gh6Bq7HaMLzW0IY3x2jXpCAt1s

<iframe width="1264" height="711" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lImxZbBaaSM" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

interesting.
I don't own any revolvers but my SA 9mm semi has the hammer lock. I know it has one at half cocked, not sure if it has the one that activates when the hammer is pulled 1/8 of an inch but I will check. I do know that I have to pull the hammer back and pull the trigger to release it.
I have never checked to see if the gun would go off with trigger pulled and the hammer released from the half cocked position because the slide would probably break my thumb. if not it sure would hurt.

If your 9mm has a visible hammer you can cock it will not drop unless you pull the trigger.
That is why many newer semi auto's have a 'decocking' lever as one has to pull the trigger and lower the hammer on older designs and if it gets away from you there can be a round fired. (if you had a round in the chamber)
The decocking lever lowers the hammer with a firing pin blocking device.

The thing to note in the vid is that the SA revolver was identified as an exact copy (Pietta Italian factory) of the SA Colt.
You cannot drop the hammer from half cock etc. without pulling the trigger IF the weapon is in good order. They have the weapon so that will be a known.

Is there any way the gun Baldwin used was either worn or modified where the hammer locks didn't engage?

Sure, you can modify anything to operate out of the norm. However, that would entail filing down the 3 notches off of the hammer base... the carry safety notch, the half cock reloading notch and the full cock trigger notch. Then you'd have a worthless pistol that could only be used for fanning or a circus act.

However, if it is properly viable then his story is bunkum.

Oh, I'm not giving him benefit of the doubt - he's a despicable prick. I was just wondering if a modification was possible.

Any firearm can be modified but you'd render the revolver basically inoperable if you filed off all of the notches on the hammer base. That is what you'd have to do to have a hammer fall with no trigger pressure.

There would be no reason to modify a "studio gun" in that way. The only modifications that are done is plugging the barrel or in the case of semi autos, modifying them so that low powder 1/4 blank rounds can operate the slide so that they can be used in indoor scenes or those where you want some sound dampening.

I know when I have de-cocked my gun, it would be very awkward to release the hammer so that it even had enough force to fire the gun. not to mention I have to hold the trigger in to do that.
actually I am not sure I could pull the trigger AND release the hammer UNLESS it was fully cocked because of the leverage my thumb would have on the hammer.
I also don't think I could do it one handed but I will try.

You know those evidence locker cameras only function about half the time these days.
And those lazy cops are always falling asleep.