Guns Laws in SA History
HOW FAR BACK does gun-licencing go? I’d never given this much thought until I wrote about Mike Trebble’s Webley double rifle (Oct 2019). Made between 1888 and 1897, originally chambered in .303, it came to be owned by a German resident of South West Africa. Going by its German proof marks (in addition to its original British proof marks) that owner had sent it to Germany to have the barrels re-bored to a 9mm calibre, and later sent it again for re-boring to 9.3x74r, but the latter was never stamped on the barrels – though it is definitely chambered and licensed in 9.3x74r. During the South African Army’s invasion and conquest of German SWA (1914–15) a South African soldier confiscated this rifle from its German owner and took it home with him – his great-grandson later sold it to Mike Trebble.
Regarding the German gunsmith’s failure to stamp the calibre on the barrels, I have seen several old firearms with no calibre stamping; others lacked serial numbers. Surmising this could be because no firearm licences were then required, I did some research and determined that prior to World War I, neither Germany nor Britain required rifles or shotguns to be licenced (Britain did have a 1902 Act which required a licence for carrying a handgun.
So I contacted Magnum contributor Dr Ron Bester whose doctoral thesis centred on local history, and who is a veritable mine of information on historical firearms. I asked him when firearms first had to be licensed in SA, bearing in mind that politically, SA did not exist prior to the formation of the Union of SA in 1910. My email went to his smartphone; I’d caught him during his annual hunt with stock-maker Bennie Laubscher, Andrew Soutar of Classic Arms, Anton Wienand and others. Ron did not know offhand but said he’d research it on his return. However, my question got the hunting party intrigued. Bennie Laubscher said he owned a very old, cased revolver which still had its local licence documents in the case, and he would check on these.
Later, Ron informed me that the Arms and Ammunition Act of 1937 (Act 28 – the so-called ‘Jan Smuts Act’) is the earliest he has a record of, and this Act also determined that magistrates would issue firearm licences. When this act came into being, all firearms had to have serial numbers for licensing purposes. In 1969, a new Act was promulgated whereby the SA Police issued firearm licences.
BENNIE SENT ME photos of the old revolver and the three old licences applying to it which had never left the wooden case. The first was issued under (British Colonial) Law No.11, 1862, and is a SCHEDULE B Registra
tion Ticket. It states, “This is to cerconsidthen tify that, having taken into eration the application of…” the name F.B. Burnham is hand-written in ink. It continues: “I have this day granted him a licence to keep at… Durban… the following firearms: 1 Revolver Pistol. In a column headed “Letter Stamped” has been written the letter K, and in another column headed “No. Stamped” is written 4152. It ends: “Given at… Durban… this… 7th day of… November… 1870” (it could be 1878 – the ink blobbed) and it is signed by a Mr Neville, Resident Magistrate.
Note that the printed section of the licence states “granted him” – it seems that women were not expected (or not permitted) to apply for firearm licences. Note also the wording “to keep at Durban” – legally this is not a licence to own or to carry, but merely to be in possession of the firearm in the Durban district. Further, the printed headings, “Letter Stamped” and “No. Stamped” suggest that the letter and number were stamped on the firearm by the magistrate issuing the licence – not at the factory. This could also explain why the number entered under “Stamped On” (4152) differs from the number on the other two licences, which must be the factory serial number.
Note that the licence does not state the calibre or manufacturer’s name. This may simply indicate that these details were not considered important. It could also suggest that this licence may not be for the same revolver as that for which the other two licences were issued, as the owner’s initials on this licence also differ from the first name on the other two. However, this seems unlikely, given that this licence was in the same gun-case and the family surname is the same.
The second licence (which cost five shillings) is a “LICENCE FOR THE POSSESSION OF A FIREARM NOT BEING A RIFLE” and is in the name of Walter Burnham who resided in the district of
Pretoria. Given the time lapse between issue dates – this one is dated 4 September, 1903 – and assuming the two are for the same revolver, my guess is that Walter inherited the piece from his father. Under “Description of Weapon” is written “7 Chamber revolver” and under “Marks” is written “No 93991 by Smith and Wesson”. Note that, again, the calibre does not appear. Interestingly, printed up the left side of the licence is:
“This licence is valid until 30 June, 1904” – only ten months.
The third licence (not shown, as it is dated 1937, issued under the Act of 1937 which required all firearms to be licenced) is also in the name Walter Burnham, who had apparently now moved to Warner Beach, Natal. It also bears the number 93991, and this time gives the calibre: “.22”.
I CANNOT END this piece without mentioning that this revolver is a S&W Model 1, which is not only the first revolver ever made by S&W, but also the first successful revolver ever to use a self-contained cartridge! It held seven rounds of what is now known as the .22 Rim-fire Short. Back then, the cartridges were loaded with spherical BB pellets propelled by three grains of black powder – first introduced in 1845 by Flobert of France, the world’s first successful self-contained metallic cartridge. The S&W Model 1 was a singleaction revolver whose frame was hinged at the top, in other words, on breaking open, the barrel pivoted upward. You then removed the cylinder, reversed it, and pushed each of its chambers over the protruding metal rod beneath the barrel to shove out the spent cases. Introduced in 1857, the Model 1 was immensely popular, and variations of it appeared – bird’s-head grip, etc. It remained a brisk seller until discontinued in 1882.
Going by all the above data, and the apparent absence of any record requiring rifles and shotguns to be licenced in the British Colonies of the Cape and Natal and the Boer Republics prior to the 1937 Act, it would seem that only handguns required licensing in those times. The wording of this 1903 Pretoria licence, “For possession of a firearm NOT BEING A RIFLE”, would seem to bear that out. If any reader has information to the contrary, or which would add to what appears here, I’d be interested to receive it via Magnum.