Coroner recommends medical checks for gun ownership

A Victorian coroner’s recommendation that GPs become more involved in ensuring their patients’ fitness to own a firearm has ‘multiple flaws’, says the RACGP.
 
It comes after a coronial inquest into the self-inflicted death of a gun owner (known as AT) who had failed to self-report a history of mental health issues and substance abuse when renewing his gun licence.
 
AT had a valid firearms licence for multiple guns, with a handgun licence due to expire on 27 July 2026 and his long arm licence expiring in 2028.
 
To renew a licence in Victoria, an applicant must declare that they are a ‘fit and proper’ person to control a gun and do not have certain attributes that would be ‘incompatible’, including a record of physical or mental illness, or drug or alcohol misuse.
 
But Victorian Coroner Simon McGregor described the current system as having the ‘hallmarks of a rubber-stamping process’ rather than being a ‘genuine vetting process around the use and control of dangerous equipment’.
 
He referred to a Rapid Review of firearm laws in Victoria undertaken in December 2025, which outlined an expanded role for medical practitioners, including GPs and psychologists, to notify Victoria Police where a licence holder’s health condition may impact their ongoing fitness to hold a firearm licence.
 
It was recommended that consultation be undertaken with relevant agencies to establish a clear and secure reporting pathway to allow for this.
 
However, Coroner McGregor said this ‘fails to consider that medical practitioners have no access to information confirming which individuals have a firearms licence beyond an individual volunteering this information’.
 
‘It would be more appropriate and less resource intensive to consider placing the onus on firearm licence/renewal applicants to provide medical evidence supporting their eligibility as a ‘fit and proper person,’ he said.
 
RACGP Victoria Chair Dr Anita Muñoz said she sees ‘multiple flaws’ if GPs were to take on this responsibility.
 
‘I understand the intent is to try and curtail the risk that is associated with people experiencing significant mental illness and owning and having access to firearms,’ she told newsGP.
 
‘However, I do not believe that asking GPs to provide assessments and guarantees about somebody’s mental health is going to be practicable, nor do I think that it’s actually going to solve the problem.
 
‘No GP in a single assessment is able to see forwards for five years into a person’s future and know that something or some event will not occur, such that no doctor really can guarantee mental health of any person five years into the future.’
 
Dr Muñoz said the assessment would also require the person applying for the firearm to give a full and frank account of their physical and mental health.
 
‘If a person is aware that the assessment and a truthful disclosure of mental health conditions may result in a loss of their licence, then logic also says that the person will seek to keep that information from the doctor, or may well go in search of a doctor that does not know them well in order to complete the paperwork,’ she said.
 
‘So, we’ve still got a zero-sum gain there, where effectively this process is being rubber stamped.’
 
In March this year, Western Australia introduced laws requiring gun owners, or those seeking gun ownership, to have a medical professional complete an assessment every five years to attest to whether they are physically and mentally fit to own a gun.
 
It was a move met with concern from the state’s GPs, with some West Australian GPs declining to take part.
 
There are also medico-legal concerns to consider, Dr Muñoz explained.
 
‘I do not feel comfortable with the fact that the personal responsibility of the firearms licensee is going to be passed to a GP from a medico-legal point of view,’ she said.
 
‘The responsibility for appropriate use of a firearm, or of a vehicle, is that the responsibility lies with the person who holds that licence to know when they are fit to drive or use a firearm and when they are not.
 
‘I do not want to see all of that personal responsibility passed onto the shoulders of GPs who may have fewer than 20 minutes to do an assessment.
 
‘I also recognise that we may end up seeing the anticipated consequence of firearms licensees not seeking care for legitimate mental health issues because they assume that any disclosure will result in loss of their firearms, so we may actually see worsening mental and physical health outcomes for people with firearms because they are purposefully avoiding seeing a GP.’
 
Dr Muñoz also questioned where the line be drawn over what makes a person fit or unsuitable mentally unfit to hold a gun licence.
 
‘What is the threshold?,’ she said.
 
‘One in five people in society has some form of mental illness at some point in their life, and that can range from mild anxiety and depression through to the most severe mental disorders, so where is the threshold for when an illness like depression tips from being safe in terms of holding a firearms licence to unsafe.
 
‘I do not feel that the GP should have to be the arbiters of when that line is crossed, particularly if that line has not been described by any regulator.’
 
Log in below to join the conversation.

firearms gun reforms mental health Victoria