THE LAW RELATING TO REVOLVERS AND REVOLVER SHOOTING IN GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND

It is perhaps advisable to explain something about the right of carrying revolvers in England, and the using them in cases of necessity, and first it should be explained that a revolver is a gun so far as the Gun License Act of 1870 (33 and 34 Vict. c. 57) is concerned, and that a license fee of 10/ per annum has to be paid for the privilege of carrying or using one, though a license to kill game includes the lesser gun license. In fact it has ever been held that a small toy pocket pistol is a firearm for the purpose of the Act. There are various exceptions to the necessity of taking out this license, and it may be as well to enumerate them, especially as many people keep revolvers in their houses and would be astonished if they thought that a gun license was necessary for the so doing—but it is not, so long as the revolver is kept or used in a dwelling house, or the curtilage of a dwelling house. This is one of the exceptions to the Act, and a very proper and necessary exception it is, for it would be most unreasonable to enact that the mere keeping a revolver for the purposes of protection should compel one to take out an annual license. Moreover the enforcement of such a restriction would be almost impossible without an inquisitorial search through every house. Probably because there is very little reason for carrying a revolver about with one in this country the exception does not apply to the so doing, and the mere taking a revolver across the street would technically compel the taking out a license. The curtilage of a house is much the same as its courtyard, and would no doubt include a yard and garden adjoining the house, but not a field beyond.

Further exceptions are that no penalty is to be incurred by any person in the naval, military, or volunteer service, or in the constabulary or other police force, but it should be noted that this exception applies only where the person claiming it is in the performance of a duty or in target practice, so that the policeman or volunteer off duty would still be subject to the obligation of having a license.

Another exception is that of any one carrying a firearm belonging to a person having a license or certificate to kill game or having a gun license, if he is carrying it by order of, or for the use of, such licensed or certificated person, only he is bound to give his name and address and the name and address of his employer if called upon.

The occupier of lands using or carrying a firearm for the purpose only of scaring birds or killing vermin on such lands is exempt too, as also any one using or carrying a firearm for the same purpose on any lands by order of the occupier, if the latter has a game license or certificate, or a gun license. Again, a gunsmith or his servant carrying a firearm in the ordinary course of trade, or testing it in a special place, need not have a license.

Lastly, a common carrier carrying a revolver in the ordinary course of business is exempt.To show how strict the law is, it may be added that the killing of vermin, which, as above mentioned, is allowed without a license does not include rabbits.

As the penalty is £10 for carrying firearms without a license, I have thought it advisable to enlarge somewhat fully on the above topic.

There are also various penalties and punishments which may be imposed upon persons misbehaving while in the possession of loaded firearms, or wantonly discharging them. Thus any one who is in possession of a loaded firearm and is found to be drunk, may be apprehended, and is liable to a penalty not exceeding 40/, or, in the discretion of the Court, to imprisonment with or without hard labour for not more than one month.

Then, any person who in the streets of a town wantonly discharges any firearm to the obstruction, annoyance, or danger of the residents or passengers, is liable to a penalty not exceeding 40/ for each offence, or, in the discretion of the justices, to imprisonment for not more than fourteen days (no hard labour).

It is hardly necessary to say that the wrongful use of a revolver as an offensive weapon is very heavily punished, it being provided that any one who shoots at a person or attempts, by drawing a trigger or in any other manner, to discharge any kind of loaded arms at a person with intent to commit murder, is guilty of felony and liable to penal servitude for life, or any less term, or to imprisonment for not more than two years with or without hard labour and solitary confinement.

Again, any one who unlawfully and maliciously wounds, or causes any grievous bodily harm to any person, or who shoots at any person, or who by drawing a trigger or in any other manner attempts to discharge any kind of loaded arms at a person, with intent in any of these cases to maim, disfigure, or disable any person, or to do some other grievous bodily harm to any person, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person, is liable to penal servitude for life or for not less than three years or to imprisonment for not more than two years with or without hard labour and solitary confinement. “Loaded arms” are defined as “any gun, pistol, or other arms which shall be loaded in the barrel with gunpowder or any other explosive substance, and ball, shot, slug, or other destructive material, although the attempt to discharge the same may fail for want of proper priming, or from any other cause.” Finally, any one who unlawfully and maliciously wounds or inflicts any grievous bodily harm upon any person with or without any weapon or instrument, is liable to penal servitude for three years, or to imprisonment for not more than two years with or without hard labour. The words “unlawfully and maliciously” are difficult to construe, and therefore it may be well to state that a man who fired in the direction of a punt, in order to deter the occupant from fowling in a particular locality, and wounded him in so doing, was convicted of malicious wounding; and generally that if a wound were to be caused mischievously and without excuse the person who inflicted it would probably be found guilty under this enactment.

So much for the strict offences caused by the improperly carrying or making use of revolvers. Before, however, leaving this subject it will be advisable to enter at a little length into the rights which any one has of using a revolver in self-defence, or in some other analogous manner. Supposing a man has passed through the ordeal of the Gun License Act and is properly and legally carrying a loaded revolver, in what cases of emergency would he be justified in using it? Well, this is a very difficult question to answer, and one which in each event would depend entirely on the circumstances of the particular case. It is therefore impossible for me to lay down any exact principles governing every event of the kind which might happen, and I will content myself with stating a few hypothetical instances and what course of conduct might be adopted in each instance.

There is no doubt on this point, anyhow,—that one is justified in using a loaded revolver in self-defence, where an attack of such a murderous character is made as to threaten one’s own existence, or the infliction of serious bodily harm; and, if the assailant should be killed, yet the using of the revolver and so disposing of him would be deemed as having been justifiable. The same rule would apply to shooting an assassin who was attempting to kill someone else. For instance, if while standing on a railway platform I were to see a man shooting at someone in a railway carriage, and at such distance that I could not actively interfere except by shooting, I should be right in firing at the assailant, and though my shot should prove fatal, still no blame could be attached to me.

How far one is justified in using a revolver in beating off or capturing burglars in one’s house is, as already mentioned, a matter which can only be decided by the facts of the particular case. Assuredly where a man is awakened in the night by the noise of burglars breaking into or already in his house, and seizes his revolver and confronts the robbers, he would be justified in firing if the robbers threatened to attack him, and it is assumed that he would also be right in firing at a robber making off with booty who refused to stop when challenged to do so, if there were no reasonable chance of arresting him in any other way; though in the latter event he should endeavour so to shoot as to cripple rather than kill. Indeed it may be said, extraordinary though the statement may seem, that even in the hurry and skurry of a conflict with burglars the mind should remain calm and collected, so as to judge whether a mortal shot is required, rather than one which will only “wing” the opponent.

In connection with this branch of the subject, the justification of a fatal shot may to some extent depend upon whether the robber was himself armed. If he were, then the killing him would be more easily justifiable than if he were unarmed. This is somewhat instanced by the law regarding an assault and battery in self-defence, which is that where there is an assault the person resisting must show that his assault committed in self-defence was not more violent than he in good faith believed to be necessary and committed on reasonable grounds, so that it would not be right to inflict a heavy beating on a person who had only committed a slight assault upon one. So when all danger is past and a man strikes a blow not necessary for his defence, he commits an unjustifiable assault and battery,—and this principle would apply to the preventing of crimes, so that though one might be acting correctly in firing at and killing a man who was murderously assaulting a third person, yet, after the assault had been committed, it might be wrong to kill the murderer if he were only discovered when running away, unless that was the only means of arresting him.

Another point which has sometimes exercised the minds of those in the habit of carrying revolvers is whether they are justified in using such a weapon to put an end to pain on the part of dumb animals where recovery is almost impossible. It may be said generally that no one can with safety interfere in such cases, even with the most benevolent intentions, so that if a horse, dog, or other animal has been so injured as to be suffering extreme agony, yet it would not be legal to put the poor creature out of its misery, unless with the consent of the owner.

The exception has been made by the Injured Animals Act, 1894, but that only empowers a constable to kill a horse, mule, or ass which is so severely injured that it cannot be led away, when the owner is absent or refuses to consent to its destruction, after a certificate has been obtained from a certified veterinary surgeon that the animal is mortally injured or so severely that it is cruel to keep it alive.

The exception that has been introduced by the Act of Parliament passed in 1894 and called “The Injured Animals Act, 1894,” provides for the slaughter, without the owner’s consent, of horses, mules, or asses, in cases of injury so serious as to make it cruel to keep them alive. It does not apply to animals other than those enumerated above, and is hedged round with such restrictions as to render it of little avail. These in brief are as follows: A constable must find the animal so severely injured that it cannot without cruelty be led away, the owner must be absent or refuse to consent to the destruction of the animal, and the constable must obtain the certificate of a veterinary surgeon that the animal is mortally injured, or so severely that it is cruel to keep it alive. After doing all this the constable may kill the animal.

The foregoing statements as to the law are not exhaustive, but they are made with the intention of helping the revolver-carrying section of the public to know what they may be responsible for and on what occasions or emergency they may safely use their weapons. To make sure that no legal error has crept in, these statements have been submitted to Mr. C. Willoughby Williams, of No. 1 Brick Court, Temple, Barrister at Law, who is of opinion that the law as set out is correct.

It will be seen, from what is said above, that if a gun or a game license is obtained, it is not illegal to carry a loaded revolver, so that if any one had to go along a lonely road, or had received a threatening letter which had alarmed him, he would be quite in his right in taking about with him a loaded revolver. It would even be quite right for any one to carry about a loaded revolver in his pocket merely as a protection in case he should be unexpectedly attacked, but any one carrying about with him such an article should be prepared to use it only in cases of great emergency, and should keep a clear head on his shoulders.

Another example of the advantages of carrying a revolver would be if one were attacked by a mad dog. In such a case, if the dog attacked in a ferocious manner, it would be permissible to shoot the dog, but it would not be allowable to shoot a dog on the supposition that he was mad, unless he was attacking one; though, of course, if there were no doubt about the dog’s being mad, then, for the sake of others, it would be wise to shoot him.

Again, if while carrying a revolver any one were passed by a runaway horse, and such horse were about to run over a child, it might be permissible to shoot the horse in order to save the child, if one were too far off to catch hold of the animal. These, however, are all matters of degree, and what would be right and proper to do in one case might in a case almost similar be quite wrong.

Note.—Since the first edition of this book was issued, the Pistols Act of 1903 has come into force. This Act stops the sale, by retail or by auction, or the letting on hire, of any pistol (which would include a revolver), unless the purchaser has a gun or game license, or is entitled to use or carry a gun without such license, or unless the purchaser shows that he purposes to use the pistol only in his own house or the curtilage thereof, or that he is about to proceed abroad for a period of not less than six months. The Act also prevents the sale or hiring out of a pistol to a person under the age of 18 years, and places a very heavy penalty on any one knowingly selling a pistol to a person who is intoxicated or not of sound mind.