Prop Gun Shooting. One crewmember dead New Mexico filmset

[MoviePropMaster2008]

Originally Posted by MT2008

With that being said, you do acknowledge that a licensed handler was not ALWAYS required on set until recently in California?

September 2010 , CA changed the requirement for all firearms to be received by an actual FFL to the creation of the Entertainment FIrearms Permit (EFP) to take the place of the FFL, because the ATF was complaining that CA had all these propmasters applying for FFLs who had no intention of selling anything. Also there is no requirement for ANY licensed person or FFL if the firearm was personally owned. As long as the legal owner was present, there was no transfer involved. The days of people just walking in a getting live firearms has been long over. But no UNLICENSED person can have a firearm shipped to them if the armorer is not bringing their own inventory. Say if a movie was filming and needed weapons from ISS, they still had to ship to an FFL and then given to the production and then returned to the FFL to ship back to ISS when they were done (the EFP did away with this in 2010). Prior to 2014 you could handle all long guns (rifles and shotguns) that weren't banned by the state, you just couldn't transfer handguns to the set without someone being licensed. After 2014, good Old California made ALL transfers require a license (ffl or EFP), the only exception being pre 1898 weapons (and any cartridge revolver was still restricted, regardless of whether it was pre 1898 or not). Technically you still needed a licensed person, but you're correct in that for un'restricted' weapons, that person does NOT have to be on set 24/7 when the guns are there. But you can't get the guns to set unless you're licensed, if that makes sense (I hope I didn't write it in a confusing manner).

Originally Posted by MT2008

That is something I have been told many times by the armorers that I know - when I've discussed shows with them, plenty of them have told me that they only handled the NFA weapons on-set and that the propmaster's team handled all other (non-NFA) firearms.

Just curious were those California Armorers? In CA, if the Propmaster's team handled Title 1 firearms, the Propmaster's team MAY HAVE already had "permitted or FFL" folks in their ranks. Most high end armorers are usually only pulled out to set for the NFA guns, but there are many ways for the NON NFA folks to still get the weapons, but it's not like the 1980s when any random person can just check out a live firearm. And if you have a CA defined 'assault weapon' forget it. You needed an AW permit to rent out ANY CA classified weapons from ISS or Cinema Weaponry, etc. And those are just plain jane semi auto guns with evil scary features.

Originally Posted by MT2008

It has been widely reported that the incident on "The Crow" happened, in part, because the production decided to send the armorer home, since the scene involving Brandon Lee's death didn't require any NFA weapons and they were trying to save money by not having to pay somebody whose presence wasn't required on-set. So they left one of the assistant propmasters in charge of the guns (all pistols and revolvers) that were being used, and the particular propmaster who handled the .44 Magnum revolver used to kill Lee was not experienced enough to know what he was doing. While "The Crow" was shot in my home state of North Carolina (as you mention), I've heard similar stories about propmasters handling the non-NFA firearms from other armorers who are working (or worked) in California.

Not true. The armorer would have been in charge of ALL weapons, if they were following the established SAFETY rules, particular those of the unions. They sent the armorer home at midnight because the guns were 'wrapped' for that shooting day. Apparently some NON ARMORER was fucking around with the .44 special (Charter Arms bulldog) locked up in the props trailer. They loaded up dummy rounds (which they initially did not have, so they went to a gun store, bought real ammo, popped the bullet off with a bullet hammer, and dumped out the powder, but sadly, kept the primer intact and reloaded the round. Some idiot dry fired the dummy round and the active primer popped and lodged the bullet an inch into the barrel. It wasn't an armorer who did that because when they dumped the cartridges they didn't notice that one of the bullets was missing. This would have been the FIRST THING I would have noticed and I would have been pissed at anyone dry firing the dummy rounds since it would indent the primers and thus make them unsuitable for a closeup shot. So the gun was put BACK into the prop trailer.

Then at 4:30 am they had extra time and decided, "Hey let's film the scene where Funboy shoots Eric" So an untrained prop handler grabbed the gun, did not check the barrel for obstructions and loaded full power hot blanks into it. The rest is history, but all footage of that scene and any image of the .44 special Charter Arms Bulldog were edited out of the movie.

If you're talking to California Armorers about NON armorer propmaster handling live firearms, are they handling things like bolt action rifles, black powder weapons, etc. because there are TONS of weapons (Assault weapons, handguns, etc) that are not NFA federally but are still strictly controlled by California law. I would also be interested to inquire as to how long ago where their recollections of this happening? For example, the props dept took care of all the weapons that ISS shipped to the set of Hemingway & Gelhorn (2012) but they were ALL inoperable (over 300 weapons). All the propmasters on that set were licensed by ISS directly and were on their permits.

Originally Posted by MT2008

Out of curiosity, are most revolvers nowadays being plugged? I know that revolvers don't need a BFA to cycle, the way that semi-autos do, but not sure what safety measures are taken even with those guns. I do find it interesting that all of the deaths that have occurred in Hollywood with prop weapons happened with revolvers.

No, the only plugged revolvers are those that are dewatted so that we can hand them off with no paperwork to anyone or they're the blocked barrel blank fire only fakes that you can buy online. We would never 'destroy' a real revolver by blocking the barrel. It can fire blanks and doesn't need to be converted back to fire live (when it is sold .... well except to those folks at the London Propstore, where they have to literally destroyed the weapon in order to make it legal, but you can't argue with all those rich Brits willing to spend their cash on screen used weapons that are ruined by being rendered permanently inoperable. ) The reason why all gun accidents ARE revolvers are because all semi and full auto firearms required a barrel restrictor device (BFA) in order to cycle. Lever or bolt actions rifles or lever/bolt/pump action shotguns are similarly UNMODIFIED. I think it's always revolvers because it's easier for crew and actors to fuck up with a handgun than a long gun. I'v screamed at more cast and crew than I can count when I catch them horseplaying with firearms. Ugh.

Hope this answers some questions

[Jcordell]

MoviePropMaster2008

Hope this answers some questions

It does indeed. The story does seem to be gaining momentum though. Has it had any effect on you?

[MoviePropMaster2008]

Originally Posted by Jcordell

MoviePropMaster2008



It does indeed. The story does seem to be gaining momentum though. Has it had any effect on you?

Sadly, folks are trying to grandstand on the tragedy. There are a number of politicians who want to sign CALIFORNIA legislation to ban the presence of live guns on any movie set in California, despite the fact that BOTH on set fatalities (I don't count John Erix Hexum because he was fucking around with a live 44 magnum with full load blanks during a BREAK IN FILMING and was technically off the set when he did the Darwin Award) happened in other states (New Mexico and North Carolina), however the idiots in charge want to outlaw ARMORERS in California.

Dumbest take I've seen on social media:
A woman I've been arguing with want to make it illegal for anyone to HOLD anything that looks like a gun on a movie/tv set and then have CGI artists put the guns INTO all the actor's hands after the fact in post production.......

Yep, someone actually proposed that ......

[Jcordell]

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

Sadly, folks are trying to grandstand on the tragedy.

Dumbest take I've seen on social media:
A woman I've been arguing with want to make it illegal for anyone to HOLD anything that looks like a gun on a movie/tv set and then have CGI artists put the guns INTO all the actor's hands after the fact in post production.......

Yep, someone actually proposed that ......

I wish I could say that I find it surprising, but I don't.

[funkychinaman]

And... there it is:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/26/enter...day/index.html

"Crew members on the set of "Rust" used guns with live ammunition and engaged in a pastime called "plinking" hours before Halyna Hutchins was killed, founder and CEO of The Wrap, Sharon Waxman, told CNN's Don Lemon Monday night, citing information from an individual with knowledge of the set."

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

And... there it is:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/26/enter...day/index.html

"Crew members on the set of "Rust" used guns with live ammunition and engaged in a pastime called "plinking" hours before Halyna Hutchins was killed, founder and CEO of The Wrap, Sharon Waxman, told CNN's Don Lemon Monday night, citing information from an individual with knowledge of the set."

I'm still going to withhold judgment until the investigation is complete. There are already a lot of rumors flying around, and different people on the crew who are talking to the press are blaming different folks - some are blaming Alec Baldwin himself, some are blaming the assistant director, and others are blaming the armorer. I think one of the things you see from this story is that movie productions have office politics, just like any other workplace - and in a situation like this, people from that workplace start immediately pointing fingers at co-workers with whom they have baggage.

I can also believe that this is a situation where the correct answer is, "All of the above."

[Spartan198]

George Clooney, a surprising voice of reason, promoting gun safety on set instead of gun bans.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/mo...ie-1235048072/

I always took him for an ultra liberal.

[MT2008]

So, in the latest development, it seems that equal derogatory reporting is coming out on Alec Baldwin, on the assistant director, and the armorer. All of them have recent reports of unsafe conduct on the sets of recent productions. I feel bad for Thell Reed if the investigation does find that his daughter was responsible (in part, or majority), since he's a very respected name in the movie armorer world, and he obviously stuck his neck out for her to get her into the business. It means that his career will probably be over, too, not just hers.

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

September 2010 , CA changed the requirement for all firearms to be received by an actual FFL to the creation of the Entertainment FIrearms Permit (EFP) to take the place of the FFL, because the ATF was complaining that CA had all these propmasters applying for FFLs who had no intention of selling anything. Also there is no requirement for ANY licensed person or FFL if the firearm was personally owned. As long as the legal owner was present, there was no transfer involved. The days of people just walking in a getting live firearms has been long over. But no UNLICENSED person can have a firearm shipped to them if the armorer is not bringing their own inventory. Say if a movie was filming and needed weapons from ISS, they still had to ship to an FFL and then given to the production and then returned to the FFL to ship back to ISS when they were done (the EFP did away with this in 2010).

Got it, thanks for educating me. I am familiar with the term EFP. However, I wasn't aware that the purpose of the EFP was to clamp down on property masters' (perceived, by ATF) misuse of the FFL system.

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

Just curious were those California Armorers? In CA, if the Propmaster's team handled Title 1 firearms, the Propmaster's team MAY HAVE already had "permitted or FFL" folks in their ranks. Most high end armorers are usually only pulled out to set for the NFA guns, but there are many ways for the NON NFA folks to still get the weapons, but it's not like the 1980s when any random person can just check out a live firearm. And if you have a CA defined 'assault weapon' forget it. You needed an AW permit to rent out ANY CA classified weapons from ISS or Cinema Weaponry, etc. And those are just plain jane semi auto guns with evil scary features.

Yes, several of them were California armorers. My impression was that they had worked with propmasters who meet the qualifications that you describe (they had FFLs).

And I am aware that for many years now, an unlicensed person could not just go to ISS, Stembridge, Cinema Weaponry, etc. and check out a firearm.

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

Not true. The armorer would have been in charge of ALL weapons, if they were following the established SAFETY rules, particular those of the unions. They sent the armorer home at midnight because the guns were 'wrapped' for that shooting day. Apparently some NON ARMORER was fucking around with the .44 special (Charter Arms bulldog) locked up in the props trailer. They loaded up dummy rounds (which they initially did not have, so they went to a gun store, bought real ammo, popped the bullet off with a bullet hammer, and dumped out the powder, but sadly, kept the primer intact and reloaded the round. Some idiot dry fired the dummy round and the active primer popped and lodged the bullet an inch into the barrel. It wasn't an armorer who did that because when they dumped the cartridges they didn't notice that one of the bullets was missing. This would have been the FIRST THING I would have noticed and I would have been pissed at anyone dry firing the dummy rounds since it would indent the primers and thus make them unsuitable for a closeup shot. So the gun was put BACK into the prop trailer.

Most of what you have said matches what I have read online (I can't claim that I've spoke to any armorers about "The Crow", except in general terms), but by pretty much every account that I have read, the production crew were on their regular filming schedule, and the armorer had been deliberately sent home so that he couldn't bill them at his rate (hourly/daily/whatever it was). The scene as originally scripted called for Funboy to be seen loading the rounds into the gun (in a close-up which required the dummy cartridges), and then shooting Eric Draven. Throughout this time, it was one of the property master's assistants who handled the gun, and the dummy cartridges, and who messed up by dry-firing the gun when he was trying to de-cock it, which is what caused the bullet on the dummy cartridge to come loose and fall into the revolver's chamber.

Also, what this about a Charter Arms Bulldog in .44 Special? By all accounts, the round which killed Lee was a .44 Magnum, not a .44 Special. Also, the character of Funboy never uses a Charter Arms revolver in the movie; the character is only seen using a Smith & Wesson 629 in .44 Magnum (as the IMFDB page documents), which makes me think that it was that gun which was used to kill Lee IRL.

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

If you're talking to California Armorers about NON armorer propmaster handling live firearms, are they handling things like bolt action rifles, black powder weapons, etc. because there are TONS of weapons (Assault weapons, handguns, etc) that are not NFA federally but are still strictly controlled by California law. I would also be interested to inquire as to how long ago where their recollections of this happening? For example, the props dept took care of all the weapons that ISS shipped to the set of Hemingway & Gelhorn (2012) but they were ALL inoperable (over 300 weapons). All the propmasters on that set were licensed by ISS directly and were on their permits.

Tbh, I'm pretty sure I've only ever talked to them about movies made from 1980 to 2000, so that is probably part of the issue. But the scenario that I've heard RE those productions is that the armorers handled the NFA weapons, while the propmaster handled anything else (which might have been anything from modern semi-auto pistols to bolt-action rifles or black powder weapons).

There are also examples that you can find online - our own Steve Karnes, as you may recall, did an interview where he discussed working on "The Shadow" and handling the famous Silver Heat (i.e., LAR Grizzly) pistols from that movie - it's linked on our page for the movie:

WM: Were you in charge of all the guns on set and supervised their use?

SK: I was in charge of the Thompson Submachine Guns as they are a restricted item requiring someone to be with them at all times. The Prop Master or his assistant handled the pistols. As for the supervising of their use, it was a team effort as we watched each other's backs to make sure that everything was safe.

http://www.shadowsanctum.net/screen/screen_1994/cinema_1994-steve-karnes-interview.html

Of course, "The Shadow" is a movie that came out over 25 years ago now, so I acknowledge the possibility that things have changed since then.

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

No, the only plugged revolvers are those that are dewatted so that we can hand them off with no paperwork to anyone or they're the blocked barrel blank fire only fakes that you can buy online. We would never 'destroy' a real revolver by blocking the barrel. It can fire blanks and doesn't need to be converted back to fire live (when it is sold .... well except to those folks at the London Propstore, where they have to literally destroyed the weapon in order to make it legal, but you can't argue with all those rich Brits willing to spend their cash on screen used weapons that are ruined by being rendered permanently inoperable. ) The reason why all gun accidents ARE revolvers are because all semi and full auto firearms required a barrel restrictor device (BFA) in order to cycle. Lever or bolt actions rifles or lever/bolt/pump action shotguns are similarly UNMODIFIED. I think it's always revolvers because it's easier for crew and actors to fuck up with a handgun than a long gun. I'v screamed at more cast and crew than I can count when I catch them horseplaying with firearms. Ugh.

Hope this answers some questions

That does answer some questions. Side note: I just watched the "Forgotten Weapons" interview with Charles Taylor from Movie Armaments Group on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnOUrRTf6jg

Good video if you haven't seen it. Taylor mentions at about 3:30 that he does in fact plug his revolvers, but mostly because the BFA assists with creating the muzzle flash - not because the gun needs it to cycle. He is, of course, a Canadian armorer - not sure what his American compatriots do.

Speaking of Brits, a story that you might find interesting: During the filming of "Aliens," Al Matthews, who played SGT Apone in the movie, claimed that James Remar, while he was playing CPL Hicks, used the Ithaca 37 shotgun to blow a hole in the set of "Little Shop of Horrors," which was filming nearby. (This incident, combined with his drug charge, was one of the many reasons that Remar was fired from "Aliens" and replaced by Michael Biehn.) Matthews has even claimed that he asked Remar, "Where the f**k did you get live ammo?" I'm not sure if it really was live ammo, or if the gun just had a high-flash blank where the pressure and fragments blew open the hole, but apparently, the shotgun may not have been plugged.