|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 16, 2011, 06:08 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,563
|
"Mad Max" - domestic violence conviction ?
Ok - so Mel Gibson can't own a gun....
What about a movie prop? IIRC, a number of those are modified firearms that still have to follow the ATF rules. If Mel - or any other actor - has a DV conviction, does that mean they can't be in posession of a firearm? |
March 16, 2011, 07:06 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 12,463
|
That's a good question, but I don't see ol' Mel having a lot of movie offers in his future.
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson |
March 16, 2011, 09:33 AM | #3 | ||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
March 16, 2011, 10:03 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 1, 2009
Location: Stillwater, OKlahoma
Posts: 8,638
|
The man has enough money,,,
,,, to prove the old adage,,,
"America, land of all the justice you can afford." Believe me, if he wants a gun,,, He will get a gun. Color me cynical if you so desire,,, but I've seen it all in my long years on this planet. If you want something and can afford the lawyers,,, You can eventually have anything you desire. But acting in a movie,,, He never has true possession (ownership) of a gun. It could be an interesting scenario though,,, If a private citizen knew of him handling a gun in a movie set,,, What would prevent them from calling the police and filing a complaint. Aarond
__________________
Never ever give an enemy the advantage of a verbal threat. Caje: The coward dies a thousand times, the brave only once. Kirby: That's about all it takes, ain't it? Aarond is good,,, Aarond is wise,,, Always trust Aarond! (most of the time) |
March 16, 2011, 01:40 PM | #5 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
Just an old man's opinion (but one sometimes shared by the legal system), if you have a gun in your hand, you posesses it.
And you don't have to be caught in the act, photographic evidence is enough. I don't recall the name, but a while back, there was some minor actress/model who was convicted of violating her probation/parole as a result of a photo shoot with her holding guns turned up on the net. SO, if it's a real gun (not a dummy/prop) and you are a prohibited person, you would be held as breaking the law, if you used it (possessed it) even briefly during the filming of a movie. The law makes no exception for guns only possessed during / as part of employment, by anyone. Including actors, police, and military service. In a curious bit of irony, the Lautenberg law actualy removed large numbers of police officers across the nation from being able to do anything other than desk work (if they kept their jobs at all), because the law made them criminals, unable to carry a firearm, even in the performace of their duties. A great many police officers had minor domestic violence convictions, a result of the stress of their lifestyles, and the fact that before the Lautenberg law, pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge, and paying a small fine was not considered a big deal, simply a way to resolve the matter and move on with life.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
March 17, 2011, 08:03 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posts: 6,004
|
But does U.S. law apply if he films overseas?
|
March 17, 2011, 08:19 AM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Quote:
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
|
March 17, 2011, 01:27 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,424
|
Quote:
....But I see nothing in that code about prop guns, non-firing replicas, and blank guns.
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe. |
|
March 17, 2011, 03:19 PM | #9 |
Junior member
Join Date: September 8, 2005
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 2,119
|
I would recon that his lawyers were able to carve an exception in the court order ... even though lautenberg is a federal law ...
|
March 17, 2011, 05:35 PM | #10 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
Convicted felons cannot even pick up an unloaded firearm. They cannot even live in a house where there are unsecured firearms that they COULD pick up ("constructive possession"). Yes, with a domestic violence conviction on his record, Mel cannot legally use a firearm, even on a movie set for cinematic purposes. If the firearm has been permanently modified so that it can fire ONLY blanks, perhaps there's some legal wiggle room available. A functional firearm? Not legally. |
|
March 18, 2011, 04:48 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Crescent Iowa
Posts: 2,971
|
He dont need to hold a gun a toy will work. Then after shooting it is edited to a real gun. We are talking about the biggest liar in the world, film as if any movie is 100% correct
|
|
|