In this case it was not... which is why I said it should be, and why on most sets it still is.
Yes, I agree and that is what I'm saying.
But the extent of that knowing stops at being told the condition by the expert whose specific job it is to know and ensure.
No, I'd disagree slightly there there especially after two previous incidents on the same production + crew waling out, in part, over safety issues, on the same production. Good to trust, better to check!
Why wasn't the armourer and actor present together when either loading or checking that the firearm is safe? If there isn't the expectation that he can't confirm by himself (like in this case with an antique/unusual weapon relative to modern firearms) then why not have the armourer confirm/demonstrate that in his presence?
"this gun is cold"
"show me please"
[armourer proceeds to just take a minute to explain there are no bullets in the drum, no caps (or if dummy ones present they're duds - perhaps demonstrate this too) etc..]
Instead, he was not told by an expert (the armourer) he was told by the AD. According to the reports so far the AD picked up the weapon (from among three weapons left lying about offset) and assumed it was safe then handed it to Baldwin, told him it was safe and he simply took his word for it then proceeded to practice a scene and in the course of doing so pointed it at someone, the armourer/expert seemingly had no part in that specific part of it. Of course, the armourer did have a part in the apparent negligent aspect of leaving the firearms unattended/unsecured and loaded with live ammunition in the first place and allowing them to be used for mucking about with live ammunition off set.