The end of English shooting YouTube channel

[breacher]

Yes the legislation allows him to do such things, but there are a few caveats. It has to be for a real production that is going to be published, the production needs to have insurance and the supervising section 5 RFD has to be satisfied that the person he is giving a firearm to is not a prohibited person or going to do something dangerous. Ultimately if someone messes up and something goes missing or gets hurt they lose their section 5 and get prosecuted. You also have to be able to afford their services. For a film production it costs around £700 for a armourer to turn up to a set and around £200 for the hire of any firearms, blank ammo is extra. This is per day.
I've worked as a film armourer on a few productions as a "RFDs servant" on behalf of a section 5 holder.

As I was saying - they have options.

They could ( if poked too much ) prosecute him. Not much case law on this subject so much open to definitions and interpretations.

A lengthy prosecution would ensue. It would cost the decision maker nothing and he would get paid by the hour for every hour he works on the prosecution. The barrister he hires would be paid for by the Crown.

Meanwhile Callum would be paying a fortune in defence costs ( if he hires a barrister ).................................

[breacher]

Can anybody with a YouTube Channel get to play with a GPMG?

The relevant legislation allowed the drug dealing ex-convict, Johnny Vaughan, to shoot a Vickers gun at Bisley...

Like much in Law - money and status gets you a better deal.

Joe soap asks for a sect 5 and gets told to go away. But if you own a multimillion pound business and hint about moving it abroad ........you will suddenly get the sect 5 !

A mental chav dangles a child over a balcony on a rough estate - social services take the child. A pop star does it in a posh hotel - no problem.

A chav with a drugs conviction denied entry to USA - an actor with same conviction - welcome to Hollywood, enjoy your stay.

A footballer with decent barrister caught doing 70mph in a 30mph limit gets no ban but one of us with legal aid solicitor would get a ban !

As I often say - the poor are mad but the rich are eccentric !

[IainWR]

I was once told that in order to shoot under this exemption you needed to have an Equity card.

Whever told you that is a liar or a fantasist. The law is what it says it is, not what imaginative idiots think it ought to be.

[Quarters]

Hi Iain
Very happy toadmit I'm wrong, I know you have immense knowledgeof thelaw.

Out of curiosity what does the law say about actors and productio n companies using section 5 firearms?

[Sim G]

s12 (2) of the principal act permits that also.

[IainWR]

Hi Iain
Very happy toadmit I'm wrong, I know you have immense knowledgeof thelaw.

Not at all suggesting you are wrong, but your informant is. I can see that being an equity cardholder would tend to validate a claim that what was going on was a film production or similar, as would employing a professional props company and any other indicator, but there's no requirement for it in the legislation.

[HH1]

This was mentioned at our club last night.... Callum is skating on thin ice according to our (retired) Firearms Officer.....

[Thorney]

Under the terms of the Firearms act its a legitimate exemption with relatively few details to adhere to. However the FA is also subject to a lot of 'interpretation' especially by the police and a lot of weight is given to the intent which could be looked at both positively and negatively depending on your pov. However at the end of the day licencing rules are actioned by the Firearms Licencing Teams as a civil application of the act, criminal proceedings are decided by the CPS who have far clearer rules to adhere to other than 'intention'.

As has been said, its all a question of how far you are prepared to go.

[breacher]

I was once told that in order to shoot under this exemption you needed to have an Equity card.

Whever told you that is a liar or a fantasist. The law is what it says it is, not what imaginative idiots think it ought to be.

Not quite.

The law is a series of wrtten articles.

The wording is open to interpretation. Judges decide on whose interpretation is correct and case law is established for future Judges to refer to.

It is only when someone is prosecuted and claims an exemption that a judge will decide on what is required etc

[breacher]

Under the terms of the Firearms act its a legitimate exemption with relatively few details to adhere to. However the FA is also subject to a lot of 'interpretation' especially by the police and a lot of weight is given to the intent which could be looked at both positively and negatively depending on your pov. However at the end of the day licencing rules are actioned by the Firearms Licencing Teams as a civil application of the act, criminal proceedings are decided by the CPS who have far clearer rules to adhere to other than 'intention'.

As has been said, its all a question of how far you are prepared to go.

Otherwise any of us could pop into the garden with a smart phone and upload videos of us with vickers machine guns on youtube claiming that they are media productions broadcast worldwide.

Once again, legislation has not kept pace with technology where in 2019, anybody with a phone and interweb access can make a movie and broadcast it worldwide in seconds.

My knowledge is slightly out of date - but as I recall, FEO manager can submit a report to Home Secretary to have an individual declared a prohibited person - and the Home Sec can do it without much in the way of proof !

If he continues to poke - they will eventually poke right back !!