The Funky Bunch
Marky Mark: felon in possession.
Selective enforcement is tyranny.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
October 7th, 2011 at 9:01 am
Yup, they generally have special rules for Hollywood.
October 7th, 2011 at 9:16 am
I was watching a props/VFX youtube video some time ago (I can’t remember what the right context is to find it again), and they gave a real gun to a actor/director/whatever and he said, “Oh, wow, so that’s what a real one feels like.”
Apparently, there is a big market in making reproduction gun props in Hollywood because there are so many action stars that can’t legally touch a real one. In many shots, where the “gun” is holstered or just being held but not fired, it’s just a resin casting of a real gun. In the shots where the gun is fired, it may be a specialty prop with pyro in it.
And some studios and directors may go the easy route and just give the felon a real gun and trust that the BATFE won’t spend the time because the matter has been muddied enough to make prosecution difficult unless a cop is right there on set and takes the “gun” off the actor on the spot and checks to see if it is real or not.
October 7th, 2011 at 11:09 am
There certainly are more than just Mark Wahlberg when it comes to felonious action stars. Another one that jumps out in my mind is Danny Trejo and he certainly handles a few guns in his movies as well. Again, not sure if real or not.
October 7th, 2011 at 11:57 am
In Walhberg’s case it has not been decided by the courts that the state law he was convicted under is federally disabiling or not.
October 7th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
I’ve noticed a trend recently where they don’t use pyro at all. They digitally add in the firing effect out of the end of the weapon. Noticed it again last night during “Person of Interest”
October 7th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
As JJ said; there is a strange quirk in Massachusetts law that makes what he did not technically a felony, at least according to various databases etc..
IF a judge looked at the case, he would most likely be declared a prohibited person, but that hasn’t happened as of yet, so it’s ambiguous territory.
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2007/04/shooters-not-felon-sorta-kinda.html