View Full Version : Firearms and weapons in general used as photographic props.
To any member that is considering using any firearm or any form of weapon in general as a photographic prop please do some research regarding the legality of ownership and usage of those items in your state of residence.
We have radically differing legislation between states in Australia as to what is considered a "real" firearm, a replica firearm, a controlled weapon and a prohibited weapon.
It appears that some items that are perfectly acceptable to be owned and used in some states have the potential to land you in jail in other states.
If you want to pose someone with firearms or weapons and publish the images on the 'net please make sure first that you and / or the subject posing with them has the appropriate license, permit or exemption to possess, carry or use those items.
Hi Andrew thanks for the advice, I'd generally give weapons the big miss but I'm curious has something like ever really come up or is this in the same vein as OHS where potential dangers are treated as though they have happened even though there is no recorded incident. Still this is good advice and the underlying point of issue is to be aware of your state laws they do differ State to State and ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
Kind Regard
Livio
ricktas
27-08-2012, 9:37pm
Livio...here is the other thread that explains it all a bit more : http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?109798-Firearms-and-weapons-in-general-used-as-photographic-props
Arghh!!, Thanks Rick, I followed the link and I now see where this was coming from, alas we are indeed becoming the nanny state, The compliance industry is hard at work over regulating everything we do, soon we will find it hard to take any photo without having release forms in triplicate, state permits for the mountains we photograph and a national permit to photograph the sky as for bugs and sports that will be deemed to dangerous :( oh what a wonderful world. :rolleyes:. On a more serious note though I would not have given this any consideration at all unless someone took the time to mention it, we may not agree with, or get frustrated by the level of regulation introduced by governments but thanks to forums like these we get to hear about them.
Kind Regards
Livio
Jakbob
26-01-2013, 12:49am
Hmmm... Maybe not the point of the thread, but I have a firearms license, and I practiced some macro photography once using some bullets as the subject, but I wasn't game to post the photos anywhere other than a shooting forum. Do you think people would have an issue if I was to post something like that on this forum? In my mind there was nothing remotely distasteful about the shots, and its all legal and above board because I'm licensed, but sometimes people can be a bit funny about that sort of stuff.
Do you think people would have an issue if I was to post something like that on this forum?
AP has an extremely diverse user database.
Some may take offence to an image of piece of steak ( cooked rare ) on a plate because they dislike animal products being used as food.
Others may become upset at an image of motor sport because they feel that all that petroleum product being burned only adds to environmental issues and promotes unsafe driving on the roads.
Yet more members may become upset at image of a brilliant yellow field of canola flowers because they hate the thoughts of genetically modified food sources.
Can't please everyone all the time but in general from what I have seen on AP there has been no howling backlash against images featuring firearms or ammunition, quite the opposite in fact where some extremely well done shots have been lauded very positively.
Xenedis
26-01-2013, 7:03am
Hmmm... Maybe not the point of the thread, but I have a firearms license, and I practiced some macro photography once using some bullets as the subject, but I wasn't game to post the photos anywhere other than a shooting forum. Do you think people would have an issue if I was to post something like that on this forum? In my mind there was nothing remotely distasteful about the shots, and its all legal and above board because I'm licensed, but sometimes people can be a bit funny about that sort of stuff.
I've posted a few firearms and ammunition images here, and nobody has expressed any displeasaure.
I say go for it.
Xenedis
26-01-2013, 10:11am
AP has an extremely diverse user database.
Some may take offence to an image of piece of steak ( cooked rare ) on a plate
I would object most vocally.
Steak should be well done, not mooing.
If it's not crunchy, it's a cow.
ricktas
26-01-2013, 11:07am
I would object most vocally.
Steak should be well done, not mooing.
If it's not crunchy, it's a cow.
I object! Steak should be medium rare.. and kangaroo steak is allowed to have the occasional lead pellet from the gun to make it crunchy (trying to keep on-topic)
Xenedis
26-01-2013, 11:28am
I object! Steak should be medium rare.. and kangaroo steak is allowed to have the occasional lead pellet from the gun to make it crunchy (trying to keep on-topic)
No wonder kangaroo meat is a bit heavy...
Hmmm... Maybe not the point of the thread, but I have a firearms license, and I practiced some macro photography once using some bullets as the subject, but I wasn't game to post the photos anywhere other than a shooting forum. Do you think people would have an issue if I was to post something like that on this forum? In my mind there was nothing remotely distasteful about the shots, and its all legal and above board because I'm licensed, but sometimes people can be a bit funny about that sort of stuff.
If one were to complain about pictures of firearms simply because they have the potential to kill, then we'd have to ban photos of alcohol, knives or even people if it comes to that!
If its legal post it. Damn the nanny state/cotton wool/PC brigade!
NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED - Get over it!!
I really hate the way society and the law is going, free speech and freedom of expression are MUCH more important than so called offensive speech.
My perspective is that of my Dad who survived Nazi Germany, then had to escape the Russians to eventually emigrate here.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (mis-attributed to Voltaire); means you have to tolerate other opinions and expressions.
There are limits, esp. when it comes to violence, eg: Muslims shoud have the right to say that they disagree with the way that Australians live their lives (if that's what they think) but not the right to stir up Muslims to kill Australians. Australians should have the same rights to disagree with some of the Muslim practices (towards women, for example) but not to stir up violence against Muslims.
Australia has one law, and that is not sharia.
That all said, the current trend to legislate 'tolerance' in the form of anti-discrimination laws is heading in the wrong direction because of the legal blow back on basic freedoms.
Xenedis
26-01-2013, 12:56pm
If one were to complain about pictures of firearms simply because they have the potential to kill, then we'd have to ban photos of alcohol, knives or even people if it comes to that!
I have created images of wine, people and cutlery.
I'm personally not worried about what people think of firearms. Firearms aren't problematic; the problem is people misusing them.
The only person who has ever objected to my status as a shooter said she didn't understand why anyone needed to fire a gun.
Well, nobody needs to kick a football either. Nobody needs to collect coins. Nobody needs to go bushwalking. Nobody needs to play a musical instrument.
That person, by the way, had earlier told me that she'd once hit an elderly pedestrian with her car.
Oh, the irony.
At the end of the day, people will like firearms images or they won't. As long as the people photographing or being photographed handling subjects such as firearms are abiding by the law, there is no problem in my book.
Steve Axford
26-01-2013, 1:02pm
And nuclear weapons aren't problematic either, it's just the people who have them. Oh the irony!
Xenedis
26-01-2013, 1:16pm
And nuclear weapons aren't problematic either, it's just the people who have them. Oh the irony!
In Australia, licensed, law-abiding civilian firearms owners use them for sporting purposes (target shooting and hunting), not as weapons.
Unlike the US, self-defence is not a genuine reason for having a firearms licence.
Steve Axford
26-01-2013, 1:36pm
Do you need a licence in the US? I thought that was part of the "slippery slope".
Xenedis
26-01-2013, 1:39pm
Do you need a licence in the US? I thought that was part of the "slippery slope".
I'm not across the licensing/permit systems over there, but as is the case in Australia, gun laws in the US vary from state to state. In some states such as California, firearms laws are very restrictive.
norwest
26-01-2013, 1:46pm
NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED - Get over it!!
You actually don't see how the above contradicts the comments below?
I really hate the way society and the law is going, free speech and freedom of expression are MUCH more important than so called offensive speech.
My perspective is that of my Dad who survived Nazi Germany, then had to escape the Russians to eventually emigrate here.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (mis-attributed to Voltaire); means you have to tolerate other opinions and expressions.
Being a country boy and for the record, I've owned and used multiple rifles and shot guns in my time.
If its legal post it. Damn the nanny state/cotton wool/PC brigade!
NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED - Get over it!!
There are limits, esp. when it comes to violence, eg: Muslims shoud have the right to say that they disagree with the way that Australians live their lives (if that's what they think) but not the right to stir up Muslims to kill Australians. Australians should have the same rights to disagree with some of the Muslim practices (towards women, for example) but not to stir up violence against Muslims.
Australia has one law, and that is not sharia.
That all said, the current trend to legislate 'tolerance' in the form of anti-discrimination laws is heading in the wrong direction because of the legal blow back on basic freedoms.
I agree to a large extent - although perhaps in a slightly more moderate way. I would not condone deliberately inflammatory "freedom of speech" if the only aim is to get up people's noses. However, I do feel that religious people of whatever faith need to stop assuming that their faith is beyond criticism. If a non believer wants to draw a picture of a "God" or wants to dispute some aspect of a particular faith, then that is just as much their right as the right of others to believe in that faith. This particularly applies in a country such as Australia where (at present) we are entitled to hold different views.
The Internet is another area which is currently threatened by both political correctness and excessive Governmental intervention. It has been a massive step forward in democratic communities, and allows the common individual to be a participant in global affairs. The current trend is to try and limit these freedoms, and we need to be vigilant that freedom of speech isn't a casualty of excessive Governmental control and censorship.
I have found this conversation to be very interesting and informative. Being a US citizen, you can imagine what I think... lol Be assured, I do abide by the law here, as I did there when I did own guns for self defense, among other reasons.
I have never thought of using a gun as a prop in a photo, but I do know someone who is licensed and owns guns for sport here. I'd love get some photos of her, holding her weapon.... I'll have to look into the laws here though, as I'm not licensed. What a great idea!
extraball
22-02-2013, 10:46am
As long as the forum cant get into trouble, then members should feel free post at their own risk? I agree that PC, and cultural sensitivities are one huge PITA, and not to be pandered to.
I have never thought of using a gun as a prop in a photo
Here's one I just did ......
Nice shot...
Be even nicer if it was real! I faked it for another competition. :)
Wow Bobt - What an excellent shot!!!!! The bullet...the smoke... !! Well done!
Just read your post - sure looks real! Like I said - Well done! :)
Granville
22-02-2013, 11:52am
Ah Bobt, I grew up shooting Lee Enfield 303's in the rifle club attached to the high school cadet unit. Yes, the high school cadets had a rifle club and we shot at Williamsotown before it became expensive real estate. We also had a 25m rifle range near the hockey oval on school grounds that we used for Wednesday sports.
Wouldn't happen these days.
Ah Bobt, I grew up shooting Lee Enfield 303's in the rifle club attached to the high school cadet unit.
Wouldn't happen these days.
You're not wrong!! That's one of the reasons I have a .303 here - nostalgia, and in fact my time in the cadets was one of the reasons they let me have a license for it. I used to come home on the train, wearing a kilt and carrying a .303. You wouldn't see anyone lobbing on the 3.45 to Belgrave with a rifle these days without mass hysteria and a police contingent in full riot gear !! Of course that would probably still happen today if I got on wearing the kilt ... my legs would constitute an offense against public decency! :lol:
I'd love get some photos of her, holding her weapon.... I'll have to look into the laws here though, as I'm not licensed.
In general, the person ( the subject of the photograph ) in possession and control of the firearm is the one who needs to be licensed. A photographer can photograph them to their hearts content and will not need any form of license so long as they keep their hands off the firearm.
ameerat42
22-02-2013, 12:58pm
I am not one to crow about the "golden days" of yore, but here is an observation:
Once we would ride our bikes out of town, each with a 22 rifle slung over our back - we were 16, and not eligible to
carry firearms but not to drive. The rifle bolts were removed and stashed in pockets, and a sock with some bullets in another.
Police passed us by on several occasions, I think stopping us to check things out once. We'd trudge the hills for hours, seeing nothing,
and taking pot-shots at rocks or some suitable harmless target, then ride back, firearms made safe as before.
But now I don't particularly care about all that. I'll leave it here without commenting on the present state of things.
BUT about the nub of this thread. Yeah, sometimes firearms in photos are just gratuitous - and the photos are often "so what".
Not so Bobt's here.
A(i)m
Xenedis
22-02-2013, 5:37pm
I have never thought of using a gun as a prop in a photo, but I do know someone who is licensed and owns guns for sport here. I'd love get some photos of her, holding her weapon... I'll have to look into the laws here though, as I'm not licensed.
In Australia you are free to photograph a person holding a firearm (not weapon), as long as:
that person is licensed to possess and use the category of firearm; and
you as an unlicensed person do not handle the firearm.
brownie
22-02-2013, 6:16pm
I don’t believe this is correct.
I’m not licenced to own firearms in Australia but I have handled firearms, discharged firearms as well as taken photos of other un-licenced persons handling and discharging firearms. This was at a shooting club. Which laws were broken?
Xenedis
22-02-2013, 6:44pm
As long as the forum cant get into trouble
Rick can clarify that in more detail, but as an observer, I would imagine that as long as AP is not depicting or being seen to be encouraging illegal activities, it cannot be held liable.
Users are ultimately responsible for what they post.
- - - Updated - - -
I don’t believe this is correct.
I'm not licenced to own firearms in Australia but I have handled firearms, discharged firearms as well as taken photos of other un-licenced persons handling and discharging firearms. This was at a shooting club. Which laws were broken?
In which state or territory did this take place, and in which year?
Were you acting under some sort of authority which allowed you to handle and use firearms?
The fact that it took place at a shooting club doesn't mean it was done legally. I should hope that wasn't the case, though!
I'm not saying that in your case anything illegal was done; I don't know the particulars of your situation.
I am not familiar with WA's laws (other than the general knowledge that they are extremely restrictive), but certainly in NSW, an unlicensed person is not permitted to handle firearms except after having completed a P650 form, which allows the person to handle firearms in the process of attending a safe handling course (which must be completed satisfactorily before one can even apply for a licence), or attending a fully-supervised 'Try Shooting' session.
One other exception is theatrical productions, but there need to be appropriate permits and licensed, supervising theatrical armourers involved with that.
My friend is in a club, and said if I was interested, I could go to a meeting, watch and learn, but to use one of theirs, I'd have to join the club. Only after at least 6 months membership and supervised firing could I possibly be approved to own one. She wasn't sure about that for me personally, as I'm not an Aussie citizen, just perm. resident - special rules may apply to me. But that was her understanding of Queensland laws for Aussies. I never asked her about photos at all though, and I'm going to. I might also contact the club and see what they say - you've got me curious now. She really does demonstrate my image of 'true blue Aussie' both in personality and looks (which I highly admire), it would be great to capture that, maybe in historical setting, done in B & W or sepia... (They meet in a historical village too!) Now, if I can find the time... :)
In Australia you are free to photograph a person holding a firearm (not weapon), as long as:
that person is licensed to possess and use the category of firearm; and
you as an unlicensed person do not handle the firearm.
Yeah ... not entirely sure that this is correct - I'd like to see where it says that. I've shot a police service revolver at a police firing range standing next to the cop whose gun it was ....... not sure that would have happened if what you say is true. The simple act of handling an unloaded gun in various situations is unlikely to be illegal, and photographing a gun in virtually any situation is hardly likely to be an offense. I'd like to see actual legislation backing up any claims to the contrary.
extraball
22-02-2013, 7:36pm
clubs can hold an open day, and under tight supervision, unlicensed members of the public can shoot. This was all perfectly legal, back when I belonged to a pistol club, about 8yrs ago. I gave the sport away, and sold the pistol, because I just didn't enjoy it enough.
Xenedis
22-02-2013, 11:08pm
In Australia you are free to photograph a person holding a firearm (not weapon), as long as:
that person is licensed to possess and use the category of firearm; and
you as an unlicensed person do not handle the firearm.
My apologies for what in hindsight seems to be clumsy wording on my part as quoted above.
My post could be interpreted such that a human subject depicted holding a firearm in a photo must be licensed in order for the photographer to take the picture.
That is not what I meant. The point I was trying to make in my post is that a person in NSW holding a firearm must be in possession of a licence or permit.
Except in very specific circumstances, a person in NSW may not handle a firearm without a licence or permit.
I've shot a police service revolver at a police firing range standing next to the cop whose gun it was ....... not sure that would have happened if what you say is true.
I cannot speak for what the police do. I know we have at least one NSW police officer frequenting this forum, and I'd love to hear his views (privately or publicly) on the situation you described.
The simple act of handling an unloaded gun in various situations is unlikely to be illegal
If the person handling the firearm is unlicensed, then your claim is incorrect.
You need to have a licence or permit for the type of firearm you wish to possess.
Go into a gun shop in NSW, ask to handle a firearm, and then see what the staff say. You will be asked to show your licence, and if you do not have a licence with you (or if it is not for the category of firearm you wish to handle), you will not be allowed to handle the firearm -- at least, if the staff are complying with the law.
and photographing a gun in virtually any situation is hardly likely to be an offense.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Depending on the nature of the photograph, it could potentially land a person in trouble, and personally, I think it's unwise to depict any illegal behaviour, or participate in it.
It is not illegal for you to photograph a firearm; it is, however, illegal, in NSW, for you or any other person to handle a firearm without a licence or permit, outside of very specific circumstances.
From Section 7A of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s7a.html:
FIREARMS ACT 1996 - SECT 7A
Offence of unauthorised possession or use of firearms generally
7A Offence of unauthorised possession or use of firearms generally
(1) A person must not possess or use a firearm unless the person is authorised to do so by a licence or permit.
Maximum penalty: imprisonment for 5 years.
(2) Without limiting the operation of subsection (1), a person who is the holder of a licence is guilty of an offence under this section if the person:
(a) uses a firearm for any purpose otherwise than in connection with the purpose established by the person as being the genuine reason for possessing or using the firearm, or
(b) contravenes any condition of the licence.
Mark L
22-02-2013, 11:45pm
^ possess and handle, are they the same thing?
If you post a photo of someone handling a gun, who would know if they have legal possession of it? :ps:
Xenedis
22-02-2013, 11:50pm
^ possess and handle, are they the same thing?
If I have your car keys in my hand, am I in possession of them?
If you post a photo of someone handling a gun, who would know if they have legal possession of it? :ps:
If you broke into some guy's home and stole his 50" television without being caught, who else would know whether or not you have legal possession of it?
At this point, I suggest that the OP of this thread be re-visited.
I suspect that the term "handle" is not so limiting as to make simply holding one illegal, and I agree that photographing an illegal act with a firearm would be a tad silly. Simply posing someone with a legally owned firearm would be unlikely to be illegal or to attract the ire of the law. NSW laws may well differ, but at some point common sense would have to prevail insofar as an innocent photograph taken for artistic purposes. Not likely to concern me as I'm unlikely to be in that situation. However, when you consider all the television shows that have actors holding guns I would doubt that they all have gun licenses.
Xenedis
23-02-2013, 12:13am
I suspect that the term "handle" is not so limiting as to make simply holding one illegal
From my interpretation of the legislation, from my experience as someone who is in the firearms business, and from discussions with others about this very issue on a shooting forum, I would have to disagree quite unequivocally with your statement.
Simply posing someone with a legally owned firearm would be unlikely to be illegal or to attract the ire of the law.
As long as the person handling the firearm has an appropriate licence or permit, it is not a problem. Gun/shooting magazines regularly depict people holding firearms, but these are licensed shooters, not simply photographic models who otherwise do not have a legal, genuine reason for being in possession of a firearm, and appropriate licenses and/or permits.
As I pointed out, it is not legal in NSW for an unlicensed person (who otherwse does not have a permit or meet specific criteria) to handle a firearm.
NSW laws may well differ but at some point common sense would have to prevail
In the interest of one's own sanity, it's best not make the mistake of associating firearms laws with common sense.
They are made by politicians who are inherently anti-gun in nature, ignorant of criminal behaviour vs. legitimate shooting activities by licensed, law-abiding shooters; and who do not want citizens owning firearms. Without getting much more political, I'll leave that point be.
Not likely to concern me as I'm unlikely to be in that situation.
That's fine, but the legality of the situation with relation to handling of firearms needs to be pointed out for the benefit of other people who may find themselves in that situation.
Again, I suggest re-reading the OP. The person who posted it had very good reasons for doing so, and it contains sage advice.
What you think should be vs. what actually is, are very separate matters.
when you consider all the television shows that have actors holding guns I would doubt that they all have gun licenses.
Refer to this thread:
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?109798-Firearms-and-weapons-in-general-used-as-photographic-props
The initial post is the same as that of this thread, but you'll see further discussion about theatrical armourers and permits pertaining to theatrical productions.
What a difference a few hours make to a thread.
A few points in no particular order.
Jan, your friend has seemingly given you sound advice about using a firearm at her club. They have also possibly told you that along with the other requirements of regular attendance and supervision you will have to obtain a license that matches the category of firearm that you wish to use.
Extraball, some things that happened in the past are no longer allowed due to reasonably recent legislation changes.
Mark, check the wordy definitions in whichever particular state or territory you wish to apply the terms "posses" or "handle" to firearms. In Victoria, if you are handling a firearm you are in possession of it. If you do not have the appropriate license for that category of firearm you are committing an illegal act.
Just to make you think even more, the same applies to ammunition for said firearms.
Bob, before you go "suspecting" and spending a lot of time typing on rather vague points about whether the various law enforcement bodies in the differing states and territories of this country would or would not be concerned about an image of a person in possession of a firearm I would advise you to thoroughly research the matter because in relation to Victorian law ( where you reside ) you are entirely incorrect. Sorry mate but you are wrong with a capital W. If a police officer is made aware of a potentially illegal act being carried out ( a non licensed person in possession of a firearm or prohibited weapon used as a photographic prop ) then it is their job to be "concerned" and if they sense an easy conviction in court due to photographic evidence ( aint that hilarious, a photographer might be aiding and abetting their own conviction :D ) then they will probably pursue the matter, after all that is their job.
To all.
Through all this thread Xenedis has simply posted facts, very rationally and knowledgeably, and I suggest that people read and absorb his comments and not get hung up over "ifs and maybes" because his summation of the affairs are correct.
As a reminder, the original thread was created to make people aware that the different states and territories of Australia have differing laws and regulations pertaining to firearms and weapons.
I have deliberately included the different words, "firearm" and "weapon" because this is a real issue in Victoria due to the fact that "toy" firearms that bear a reasonable resemblance to operable firearms do not fall under the firearms act legislation and regulations any more. They have been deemed to be a weapon and a prohibited one at that. That is an entirely separate act of parliament and is in no way aligned with anything that comes under the firearms act. See https://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=25574 and click through to a few documents relating to imitation firearms.
ameerat42
23-02-2013, 9:54am
- we were 16, and not eligible to
carry firearms but not to drive.
Of course, when you correct a correction you sometimes have to re-correct that...
"...16, and eligible..."
:rolleyes:
DavidG
23-02-2013, 11:08am
Thanks for the post. I have been thinking of a portrait that involves a firearm as a prop. I'll go to my local police station and sort some advice. These will be the guys that will get the call if someone doesnt like what Im up to ;)
Thanks Andrew, and yes, part of joining the club is to file the proper applications and obtain a license. I'm not sure that I even want one. With regulations so tight, I'm afraid I'd break an unknown law by accident out of old habit, and I don't want to run that risk. Even the wording - as in weapon. Where I was raised, anything is a weapon if used to hurt or kill. A toothbrush can be a weapon if pushed so deep into an eye that it reaches the brain and kills someone. Gun would definitely fall into that broad category - any kind. Too many regulations take the fun out of sport, and living where I do, there is no other reason to have one. If I don't own or touch a gun, I can't break a law pertaining to it - except maybe if I take a photograph.... That's the details I'll have to look into. Maybe a visit to the local police station will solve that mystery. :) It sounds like as long as my friend is licensed for the gun she is handling in the photo, we'd both be OK.
I'm really glad this subject came up! You've given me some ideas for photos, and alerted me to the legal aspect, all in one thread! Thanks everybody!
- - - Updated - - -
Hehehe... Missed your post, David. Looks like we're thinking along the same lines. :)
Of course, when you correct a correction you sometimes have to re-correct that...
"...16, and eligible..."
:rolleyes:
We never had firearms when I was a kid (or at least anything we considered to be firearms)—but we did have an old air rifle which was originally used in controlled conditions for supervised target shooting and wound up being used by my brothers and me stalking each other round the bush (we only very rarely actually shot each other). Then my youngest brother decided to take it to school, where it got stolen. Mm. Sometimes I miss the '70s.
Many thanks to Xenedis for his very clear and calm exposition of current Aussie firearms laws.
Xenedis
23-02-2013, 12:17pm
Many thanks to Xenedis for his very clear and calm exposition of current Aussie firearms laws.
Thanks Jim, but just to clarify, my area of knowledge pertains specifically to NSW firearms laws.
Laws can and do vary from state to state, but from what I've seen there are also some commonalities between different states' or territories' legislation.
It is the responsibility of licensed shooters to ensure they're compying with the laws of whatever states or territories they're entering.
landyvlad
27-03-2014, 8:08pm
I've just come across this thread and as a shooter find it interesting. Obviously you must familiarize yourself with the relevant state legislation and obey it. But quite aside from that there is another consideration. Remember that once you upload a pic is out there in Web land. You can't get it back. So don't take and publish any pictures of your idiot mays holding pistols "chopper reed" or "gangsta" style.
If they ever get into trouble or any media attention you can guarantee that photo will turn up!
- - - Updated - - -
And as an aside photographing long arms is technically quite difficult to do well so give it a go!
And as an aside photographing long arms is technically quite difficult to do well so give it a go!
Just reinforce the point, if you are photographing longarms that are only in your possession then you must have the appropriate license in whichever state of Aus that you are doing the photography to be in control of the firearms.
If you are photographing someone else holding or "possessing" the longarm, they must have the appropriate license.
No ifs, no buts, no maybes. :)
landyvlad
28-03-2014, 4:03pm
Yes indeed.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.