When Doctors Become Gatekeepers: GPs in Western Australia Raise Concerns Over Firearm Licence Health Assessments

Since 31 March 2025 general practitioners in Western Australia have been asked to take on a new role many feel unprepared for. Under recent firearms legislation residents applying for or renewing a firearm licence must now complete a Firearm Authority Health Assessment (FAHA) conducted by a GP. The GP must evaluate whether the person is physically and mentally fit to hold or retain a firearm licence. Though the law aims to strengthen public safety the requirement is drawing concern from many within the medical profession.

The Stakes and the Strain

The logic behind the reform is clear: reduce risk, prevent harm. The government argues that some medical conditions, treatments, or behavioural history may affect safe possession or use of a firearm. Health assessments are intended to provide police with relevant medical information as one factor in the licensing decision. WA Health+2Medical Forum+2

However what appears simple in principle becomes complex in practice. A recent poll of WA GPs by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners found almost 80 per cent of respondents are unwilling to provide these health assessments. RACGP+1 Many cite ethical, legal, and practical concerns. GPs worry about being placed in the position of predicting future risk — a notoriously unreliable and unfair burden. sifa.net.au+3RACGP+3RACGP+3

In rural and remote areas these concerns are intensified. Doctors may know their patients well, may live alongside them socially, yet be asked to formally decide whether that person can keep a firearm licence for five years based on one health check. Medical Forum+3RACGP+3ABC+3

There are further fears that patients might avoid disclosing mental health issues or skip treatment because they fear consequences for their licence. The doctor-patient relationship, built on trust and confidentiality, feels exposed. RACGP+2Medical Republic+2

Legal liability also looms large. Although WA Police has stated that GPs will be protected from civil or criminal liability when assessing fitness in good faith, many doctors remain uncertain whether this protection will extend to all situations or hold up in practice. AAP News+3RACGP+3ABC+3

How the Process Works — And Where Tension Lies

The changes introduced by the Firearms Act 2024 include several new requirements: limits on the number of firearms, mandatory safety training, storage rules, and FAHA for licence applicants and renewals. WA Health+1

The FAHA comprises two parts. First, the applicant completes a self-assessment. Then they take this, along with details of prescriptions, medical treatments, aids (like hearing aids or prostheses), to a GP appointment. The GP reviews the form and performs a medical assessment to see if there are any present risks in physical or mental health that may compromise firearm safety. Western Australian Government+2Medical Forum+2

Guidance notes from WA Police exist. They instruct GPs about what functional abilities to consider (for example: ability to aim, steady the firearm, impulse control) and warn about possible patient hostility. Medical Forum+2AusDoc+2

GPs are not required to carry out FAHA; they may decline. Also, the assessment result is only one input into the ultimate licensing decision, which rests with the Commissioner of Police. Western Australian Government+1

Potential Unintended Consequences

The reform could produce outcomes opposite to what was intended. If people fear losing a licence, or fear judgement, they may withhold mental health issues or avoid seeking help entirely. That would undermine both public safety aims and broader health outcomes. Medical Republic+2sifa.net.au+2

For GPs, there is risk of burnout or moral distress in being asked to make judgements about future risk. The expectation that they can or should reliably predict harm is medically and ethically fraught. RACGP+2RACGP+2

In smaller or remote communities, social dynamics can make refusal of FAHA assessments difficult or risky. GPs live among their patients; denying certification may expose them to tension or conflict outside clinic hours. RACGP+1

There is also concern about fairness and consistency: what is “fitness” in one GP’s eyes may differ from another’s. Without clear, shared standards, variation could lead applicants to “shop around” or feel unfairly treated.

What Must Be Done Moving Forward

These reforms may achieve their purpose if implemented carefully, but only if the voices of GPs are listened to and supported. First steps include providing clearer guidelines and training to help GPs understand what assessments entail, how to handle ambiguity, and how to protect therapeutic relationships.

Second, ensuring medico-legal protections are tangible and transparent. Not just assurances, but perhaps legal frameworks or indemnity protections that reduce the fear of personal liability.

Third, creating mechanisms for oversight and evaluation: tracking how FAHA is applied, whether there are patterns of misuse, whether patient care is compromised, whether risk is reduced.

Fourth, ensuring access to specialist support — mental health professionals, psychiatrists, psychologists — particularly in regional areas, so that GPs are not expected to carry the burden alone.

Finally, communication to the public matters: people need to understand why these laws exist, what is expected of them, how the process works, and that seeking help for mental health is still safe and valued.

Conclusion

The new Firearm Authority Health Assessment requirement in WA puts GPs in unfamiliar territory. They are not merely treating illness; they are being asked to assess risk, to make judgements that bridge clinical practice and public safety. TMFS believes that safety and accountability must be balanced with compassion and trust. Laws matter. But so does how they are administered.

If this reform is to serve both individuals and the public, its implementation must shield doctors from undue burden, protect the therapeutic relationship, and encourage openness rather than silence. For policymakers and health authorities, the challenge is not only to legislate responsibility but to build systems that support those tasked with carrying it.

All rights belong to their respective owners. This article contains references and insights based on publicly available information and sources. We do not claim ownership over any third-party content mentioned.