Will I lose my firearms licence in the ACT because of my prescription?

What the law actually says

Firearms Act 1996 (ACT), Republication No 64, effective 16 November 2025.

Health is the first discretionary criterion. Suitability is decided under s 17, which requires the registrar to consider the discretionary criteria in s 18 and the mandatory criteria in s 19. s 18(1)(a) is “whether the registrar believes on reasonable grounds that, because of the individual's physical or mental health, the individual may not handle firearms responsibly.”

Note what the test is about. It is not the condition, and not the treatment — it is whether the individual may not handle firearms responsibly because of it. Every jurisdiction checked so far frames it that way, and it is the reason two people with identical prescriptions get different answers.

The health inquiry runs on consent. s 56(2) lets the registrar require further information or documents reasonably needed to decide an adult firearms licence application. s 56(3) adds that where “the registrar believes on reasonable grounds that the applicant's mental health may affect the applicant's ability to handle firearms responsibly, the registrar may ask the applicant to consent to the disclosure to the registrar of personal health information about the applicant from a health record”. The Act's own note points to the Health Records (Privacy and Access) Act 1997 (ACT), under which that consent must be in writing and must name the provider who made the record.

And refusing that consent is expressly carved out. s 56(4): if the applicant does not comply with a s 56(2) requirement, “(other than in relation to the consent mentioned in subsection (3))”, the registrar may refuse to consider the application further. The words in brackets are the point. Withholding consent to a health-records release is not, by itself, a reason to stop considering the application — which is the opposite of the position in Western Australia, where failing to comply with a health requirement is sufficient grounds for the adverse finding, and in Queensland and Tasmania, where an application is taken to have been withdrawn.

That does not make the registrar powerless: s 18(1)(a) still stands, and a registrar left without information forms whatever view the material supports. But the mechanism is different, and the difference is written into the Act.

A health professional may tell the registrar. s 261(1) applies where a health professional believes a person they are or have been providing professional services to “may pose a threat to public safety or a threat to the person's own safety” and “possesses or has access to a firearm”. s 261(2): they may tell the registrar. s 261(3): if they act honestly, doing so “is, for all purposes, not a breach of confidence or professional etiquette or ethics, or a breach of a rule of professional conduct”, and no civil or criminal liability is incurred. s 261(4) defines health professional broadly — a doctor, psychologist, nurse, midwife or social worker, a person providing professional counselling services, or anyone else declared by regulation.

The ACT's threshold is the widest of the four checked: it is a threat to safety, not unsafe firearm handling. Its list of who may report is also the widest, reaching social workers and counsellors.

Drug convictions are a separate criterion, and are not the same thing as a prescription. s 18(1)(b)(iv)(B) makes a conviction “in the ACT or elsewhere involving violence, drugs, alcohol or weapons” in the last 10 years a discretionary criterion. That is about convictions. Lawful possession of a prescribed medicine is not one.

What we did not check. Whether ACT Policing's firearms registry publishes a health declaration form, or a policy about prescribed medicines, is not covered here. Everything above comes from the legislation named at the foot of this page. A registry's own form is often more informative about how a discretion is exercised in practice, and it is worth asking for one before you apply.

What happens if it goes wrong

Read off the Act as at 16 November 2025:

• Cancellation is mandatory in some cases. s 81(1): the registrar must cancel an adult firearms licence “if, had the licensee been applying for the licence held, the registrar would be required to refuse to issue the licence” (para (a)), or if satisfied on reasonable grounds that the licensee “is not suitable” (para (c)), with the Act's note pointing back to s 17. Suitability is therefore tested for the life of the licence, not just at the counter.
• Contravening a licence condition is also a ground — s 81(1)(b)(iii).
• Review is to ACAT. s 260A: an entity named in schedule 4 column 4, or “any other person whose interests are affected by the decision”, may apply to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal for review of a reviewable decision. s 260 requires the decision-maker to give a reviewable decision notice, which is what tells you the right exists.

Both of the decisions that matter here are listed. Schedule 4 sets out the reviewable decisions, and item 5 covers a decision under s 57 to refuse to issue or renew an adult firearms licence, while item 12 covers a decision under s 81 to cancel one. In each case the entity who may apply is the applicant or the person who held the licence.