Apache, That is perfectly true, but the Highways Act does not have primacy over The Firearms Act and negligence with a firearm on the Highway,is achieved by regard to the lawful authority/excuse being present and is nullified by those resulting injuries/interruption/endangerment, as an example a person in the employ of a police force for humane dispatch is liable to ensure the avoidance of the above occurrences...this is one of the reasons that in my County a Police Officer is sent to RTCs involving deer to assist in the provision of safety to the public and the dispatcher on the Highway.The possible offence occurs not by the discharge of the firearm but by not having the preventative measures in place prior to that discharge,therefore if negligence was the basis of the complaint,the 50ft rule could be used as a defence of having lawful authority or excuse,however the use of the firearm without reasonable safety measures resulting in any of the above would void that defence..my original post was referring to a situation where a person stops on the highway and performs a humane dispatch without the pre/mentioned safeguards in place ie does it of their own volution and is the subject to a complaint made to the Police . It is a difficult one, but I can assure you that it is not an impossible scenario ..acooleague of mine was carrying out a dispatch albeit with a knife and was reported by a motorway safety officer for cruelty..that one definitely came as an unexpected worry!Anton