can i get a licence with ADHD?

[AussieMadman]

just wondering whether anyone knows more about this.
i can't seem to find anything on the internet regarding getting a licence with ADHD. (the ADHD isn't bad at all, just wondering whether a diagnosis is going to classify me as an unfit person to own and use a firearm).
also, perfectly clean record otherwise. will i have any issues when i apply?

[nurofen]

I hope you can focus on the target and not shoot s**t randomly.

[AussieMadman]

I hope you can focus on the target and not shoot s**t randomly.

it isn't bad at all, no inattentiveness and very little on the hyperactivity side. all in all, very mild.

[animalpest]

I dont think having a handle of "AussieMadman" is doing yourself any favours.

[on_one_wheel]

I'd be amazed if ADHD causes any issues with licensing, it's not something that causes adults be become irrationally.
It would only be a concern if your one of the many who play up the disorder just to get your hands on prescription amphetamines.

[AussieMadman]

I dont think having a handle of "AussieMadman" is doing yourself any favours.

hehe
fair point

[bigrich]

I dont think having a handle of "AussieMadman" is doing yourself any favours.

[yoshie]

If you currently on a prescription it's going to difficult to say on your application that you don't suffer from psychological condition. You'll probably have to go through the process of being denied and appealing the decision with a letter from your prescribing doctor. It would be best to have a chat with your doctor first. In Qld the guidelines were tightened last year.

[deye243]

If you currently on a prescription it's going to difficult to say on your application that you don't suffer from psychological condition. You'll probably have to go through the process of being denied and appealing the decision with a letter from your prescribing doctor. It would be best to have a chat with your doctor first. In Qld the guidelines were tightened last year.

And after last week it will be tightened a hell of a lot more

[Fionn]

It doesn't exclude you, but ADHD is classed as a mental illness, so you will need to declare it in the application. They may ask you to get your doctor to complete a medical assessment before making the decision.

But speak to your treating doctor first to find out if they would support the application.

[womble]

Fionn is correct.

ADHD in itself is not enough to exclude you. But how it effects you and your history will be most relevant.
If you lie on your application that’s an instant fail. Be honest and upfront. You will be afforded a discussion.
Your username is not a great first impression agreed. Not the insight into yourself that would impress apon them a nature of responsibility.
Let’s forget that and assume you are a mature conscientious individual. Persevere. Understand the responsibility you are applying for.
Would actually be a great sport for you to get involved in.
You might not win this the first time around. But if you are genuine there may be some steps you can take to get there.

[colin.rac]

just wondering whether anyone knows more about this.
i can't seem to find anything on the internet regarding getting a licence with ADHD. (the ADHD isn't bad at all, just wondering whether a diagnosis is going to classify me as an unfit person to own and use a firearm).
also, perfectly clean record otherwise. will i have any issues when i apply?

I doubt it. I received a pre-approval letter the other day, stating my background check cleared. In September I was in a psychiatric ward for suicide attempts, and now on medication. If they'll willingly give me a lethal weapon, I'm sure you would be fine. Keep in mind things change state to state, but matters like this I would think are fairly standard across the country. They may ask for a medical certificate (I got one beforehand and submitted it with my application) to say you aren't a danger to others or yourself. If you are on dexamphetamine, state that in the "medications" section of your application and provide a description saying why you are prescribed them, the amount, and that it encourages focus, making it safer for firearms use. Again, you could state like I did that you will be getting a medical certificate to give medical clearance for firearm ownership.

Hope this helps.

Colin.

[Elmer Fudd]

any update on this? in a similar situation myself.

[Oldbloke]

People need to say what State they are in. They vary.

I can say with a high level of confidence that in Vic high functioning autism is OK. Well it was 2 years ago.

[JohnV]

Once you admit to any medical condition you give them the legal right to investigate it further or use it against you . Your entitled to medical privacy unless you voluntarily give it up . I would not discuss it with any Doctor or medical person as they have reporting rights under the firearms act and might just sink you . You only do that later for an appeal if they knock you back .

[aogden]

Vic here.

I have diagnosed ADHD as well as Tourette's Syndrome (mainly motor tics), well managed on medication. I hold a Cat A+B and a Provisional Cat H (full Cat H submitted). I participate in centrefire/rimfire handgun competitions and rimfire rifle competitions regularly.

In my experience - LRD/Police simply just want to see something written from a doctor to say you are OK. My GP was happy to give this to me and I did not experience further application delays.

So long as you can get a doctor to fill out their medical report form saying you are fine, then you should not have an issue.

[womble]

Once you admit to any medical condition you give them the legal right to investigate it further or use it against you . Your entitled to medical privacy unless you voluntarily give it up . I would not discuss it with any Doctor or medical person as they have reporting rights under the firearms act and might just sink you . You only do that later for an appeal if they knock you back .

I disagree with this advice.
They have access automatically to your medical history. Unless you’ve opted out of it. Which you can do. Which they might see as a red flag.
You’re asked to disclose in your license application. You could lie. Not advisable. The licensing process is an assessment of your character. Of your honesty. It’s something they will take time to discuss further with you and assess.
Not an automatic fail.
This is something that can alternatively come back to bite you if you failed to disclose it up front. And an appeal would be pointless.
I also disagree with avoiding discussing your condition with doctors. Your health comes first includes your mental health.
If your application was successful you would probably be the person who manages their condition and dose’nt ignore it.

[JohnV]

You are reading some of it wrong. I never said not to discuss his medical problems with a Doctor . It was in reference to discussing getting a gun licence with any Doctor or Nurse . Your not lying if you feel your quite ok to safely handle a gun and answer that way .

[straightshooter]

Doctors have a statutory obligation to report various issues besetting a patient to an appropriate authority or face disciplinary action such as losing their ability to practice as a doctor.
The most common trigger for a visit from the police and a loss of firearms is extreme depression.
Now you just don't go in and say Hi doc I think I've got extreme depression and bang it happens. It's will more likely be a process of reporting increasing numbers symptoms that at some point add up to a diagnosis of extreme depression. It doesn't matter if the doctor knows you are a firearm owner or not but if it is known it just speeds up the process.

[Fionn]

There are no statutory obligations for doctors or nurses to report information to police about firearm owners medical conditions.

Nor is the information automatically or regularly updated to police.

Police can request the information if they have reasonable grounds and medical practitioners can make voluntary reports if they feel their is a need.

[womble]

That's not what the voices told me

[NTSOG]

G'day All,

I have read this discussion with personal and professional interest. Professionally I worked for 40 years of my 50-year career as a teacher with children and adults presenting with just about every type of developmental disorder possible, especially intellectual disability and autism. I was a specialist in working with people who were especially violent and often dangerous. Personally I am autistic - extremely so as diagnosed. I was formally diagnosed in my mid-forties. [I'm over 70 now.] My brother is also clearly autistic, though he has not sought an assessment - he doesn't need one. He knows who and what he is. He is also a licensed shooter.

Neither of us has informed the Police that we are autistic. It's none of their business. What should be important to the Police is our behavioural record in society. That is, do we have a criminal record? We are both fully functional adult members of society who have been gainfully employed all our lives, though we are 'different' in certain ways. Being different is not a crime. The same should apply to those with ADHD: if such people can and do function safely and effectively in society then their diagnostic state is not the business of the Police.

Note the names:

* Autism Spectrum Disorder

* Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

The term 'disorder' means that the diagnosed person's developmental progression from birth followed a different sequence from the norm, thus is 'disordered' or out of the normal order. A dis-order or difference in development is not a mental illness, though autistics and those with ADHD can develop mental health issues just like everyone who is reading this post. Historically there has been much confusion about the difference between mental illness and developmental disorders often because institutions for the mentally ill and those who were mentally retarded/developmentally different were often on the same site, e.g., Kew Cottages for those with developmental disorders and Willsmere Psychiatric Hospital were side-by-side in Melbourne. In the case of autism many autistics were diagnosed as schizophrenic up to the 1980s and ADD which became ADHD was largely unknown and undiagnosed in the 1970s when I studied for my M.Sc. in disability.

The best example of a person who should never have had access to firearms was Martin Bryant. He has an intellectual disability [mild] with measured IQ of 66. He had some communication impairments when very young. His intellect is at the borderline level in the population, but that is not the primary issue. The intellectual impairment or developmental disorder by itself did not predispose him to harm others. However, as he grew and developed, he displayed many of the symptoms of a Conduct Disorder, e.g. risk taking, playing with fire, hurting other people, lack of empathy, cruelty to people and animals, etc. which are considered precursors to serious psychopathology in adulthood. [I worked with a very large and scary 13 YO lad in 1997 who was probably worse than Bryant as assessed, but he never had access to firearms and was never going to - thankfully.] Nowadays Bryant would have been picked up and services sought for him in relation to his significant mental health problems and presentation. In Tasmania back in the 1970s and early 1980s, as for most of the country, few people knew about Conduct Disorders, let alone what to do with them.

Jim

[Oldbloke]

Jim,
Thankyou for that explanation. Very good

[Fionn]

G'day All,

I have read this discussion with personal and professional interest. Professionally I worked for 40 years of my 50-year career as a teacher with children and adults presenting with just about every type of developmental disorder possible, especially intellectual disability and autism. I was a specialist in working with people who were especially violent and often dangerous. Personally I am autistic - extremely so as diagnosed. I was formally diagnosed in my mid-forties. [I'm over 70 now.] My brother is also clearly autistic, though he has not sought an assessment - he doesn't need one. He knows who and what he is. He is also a licensed shooter.

Neither of us has informed the Police that we are autistic. It's none of their business. What should be important to the Police is our behavioural record in society. That is, do we have a criminal record? We are both fully functional adult members of society who have been gainfully employed all our lives, though we are 'different' in certain ways. Being different is not a crime. The same should apply to those with ADHD: if such people can and do function safely and effectively in society then their diagnostic state is not the business of the Police.

Note the names:

* Autism Spectrum Disorder

* Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

The term 'disorder' means that the diagnosed person's developmental progression from birth followed a different sequence from the norm, thus is 'disordered' or out of the normal order. A dis-order or difference in development is not a mental illness, though autistics and those with ADHD can develop mental health issues just like everyone who is reading this post. Historically there has been much confusion about the difference between mental illness and developmental disorders often because institutions for the mentally ill and those who were mentally retarded/developmentally different were often on the same site, e.g., Kew Cottages for those with developmental disorders and Willsmere Psychiatric Hospital were side-by-side in Melbourne. In the case of autism many autistics were diagnosed as schizophrenic up to the 1980s and ADD which became ADHD was largely unknown and undiagnosed in the 1970s when I studied for my M.Sc. in disability.

The best example of a person who should never have had access to firearms was Martin Bryant. He has an intellectual disability [mild] with measured IQ of 66. He had some communication impairments when very young. His intellect is at the borderline level in the population, but that is not the primary issue. The intellectual impairment or developmental disorder by itself did not predispose him to harm others. However, as he grew and developed, he displayed many of the symptoms of a Conduct Disorder, e.g. risk taking, playing with fire, hurting other people, lack of empathy, cruelty to people and animals, etc. which are considered precursors to serious psychopathology in adulthood. [I worked with a very large and scary 13 YO lad in 1997 who was probably worse than Bryant as assessed, but he never had access to firearms and was never going to - thankfully.] Nowadays Bryant would have been picked up and services sought for him in relation to his significant mental health problems and presentation. In Tasmania back in the 1970s and early 1980s, as for most of the country, few people knew about Conduct Disorders, let alone what to do with them.

Jim

Very well put Jim, although police don't differentiate between disorder and illness as broadly as this, they generally go by the definition of mental illness covered by the relevant mental health act, which is generally pretty broad. I haven't looked at Tasmania laws but I would make an educated guess that it's the same.

[NTSOG]

Fionn: " they generally go by the definition of mental illness covered by the relevant mental health act"

The various definitions of mental illness still do not and cannot include people who are simple autistic or present with ADHD to name a couple of disorders. As I remarked up to about 1980 many an autistic was diagnosed as schizophrenic. Anyone who tried to label any autistic in such a manner nowadays would be in strife.* Without a formal diagnosis of some other co-morbid [psychiatric] condition which is specified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual V [DSM V] the police would be in strife. They are not diagnosticians and would have to accept the formal assessments of independent psychologists, psychiatrists and other medical specialists just as I, when working in Victorian Disability Services, often had an opinion about the mental state of an individual client, but legally had to seek an independent assessment from a qualified specialist. Hence, I came to know many paediatricians, psychologists, neurologists, psychiatrists, therapists, etc., but would not dare to 'tread' on their turf by venturing a Diagnosis. I was no more qualified to diagnose mental health conditions than the local plumber. Had I done so my manager would have received a formal complaint about my actions.

Jim

*I have been described over the years as 'suffering' from autism like I might suffer from a medical condition or illness like a cold or broken leg. I don't suffer because I am who and what I was born.

[Fionn]

Fionn: " they generally go by the definition of mental illness covered by the relevant mental health act"

The various definitions of mental illness still do not and cannot include people who are simple autistic or present with ADHD to name a couple of disorders. As I remarked up to about 1980 many an autistic was diagnosed as schizophrenic. Anyone who tried to label any autistic in such a manner nowadays would be in strife.* Without a formal diagnosis of some other co-morbid [psychiatric] condition which is specified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual V [DSM V] the police would be in strife. They are not diagnosticians and would have to accept the formal assessments of independent psychologists, psychiatrists and other medical specialists just as I, when working in Victorian Disability Services, often had an opinion about the mental state of an individual client, but legally had to seek an independent assessment from a qualified specialist. Hence, I came to know many paediatricians, psychologists, neurologists, psychiatrists, therapists, etc., but would not dare to 'tread' on their turf by venturing a Diagnosis. I was no more qualified to diagnose mental health conditions than the local plumber. Had I done so my manager would have received a formal complaint about my actions.

Jim

*I have been described over the years as 'suffering' from autism like I might suffer from a medical condition or illness like a cold or broken leg. I don't suffer because I am who and what I was born.

I don't disagree with what your saying, but the application forms are deliberately written in vague manner with regards to this and they use the board definitions of these Acts for internal policies on whether to require a medical clearance.

Also they aren't labelling a person anything they are asking broad questions to assess their suitability.

You are required to list ASD/ADHD (if you receive treatment in the last 5 years) for a Victorian application or renewal, for Tasmania it's more grey but certainly can be argued it is covered as they use the term mental or emotional problems, whatever that means (which is the point I am making)

If you write you have ASD or ADHD you will be required to get a medical clearance This is certainly the case in Victoria and I am sure for most states.

Are you saying this isn't the case?

While late/adult diagnosis of ASD seems to have become trendy of late, there are down sides to getting a diagnosis. The law really needs tightening up and to be made clear in regard to these issues.

[NTSOG]

Fionn: "You are required to list ASD/ADHD (if you receive treatment in the last 5 years) for a Victorian application or renewal ..."

I have never had any 'treatment' specific to being autistic, nor has my brother. I was formally diagnosed by a panel of senior psychologists over 20 years ago, but diagnosis does not in itself constitute an ongoing form of medical/psychiatric treatment. There are autistics who are receiving treatment for their high levels of anxiety for instance, but there are many of us, including other teachers and a school Principal, a psychologist, a therapist, I know who are completely functional in society without needing any ongoing medical [psychiatric/psychological] interventions at all. Why should we declare ourselves to the Police when we are functioning like any other member of society and have been for decades? We are different, not mentally ill. If I was receiving any 'treatment' then I would declare it, but I'm not 'sick in the head'.

Fionn: "While late/adult diagnosis of ASD seems to have become trendy of late, there are down sides to getting a diagnosis."

For me and other autistic adults I know getting a diagnosis was not 'trendy'. It was about trying to understand personal differences compared to the majority of the population and why we autistics like some situations and can do some things in society and avoid others. In my case it was primarily because I was bullied and assaulted through my school life and, later, when working professionally in the Victorian Public Service - Disability, I was subject to ongoing harassment and further subtle bullying by a clique of social workers - of all people - over many years. Obtaining a formal diagnosis gave me leverage and safety from those who were making my life difficult. [The Government Department had to note my diagnosis and ensure my working conditions were safe.] It explained my old-fashioned formal manner and intense focus on my work to the exclusion of the in-house drinking clique and its vicious members whom I ignored. It was not about being trendy. It was about being safe and realising I was different and that was alright.

My point is that being different [autistic or ADHD, etc.] is not in itself a medical issue/condition warranting special discrimination by bureaucrats.

Jim

[Fionn]

Why should we declare ourselves to the Police when we are functioning like any other member of society and have been for decades? We are different, not mentally ill. If I was receiving any 'treatment' then I would declare it, but I'm not 'sick in the head'.

Treatment is again a pretty broad term, if you have seen any medical practitioner about your ASD for 5 years you would not need to declare it in Victoria.

My point is that being different [autistic or ADHD, etc.] is not in itself a medical issue/condition warranting special discrimination by bureaucrats.

Jim

It is in Victoria if you have received treatment for it within the last 5 years and maybe in others states.

You may think it's not fair but it is what it is. As I said before the laws need to be tightened up and made clearer.

Tasmania BTW also require you to list any serious injury you have suffered in your life.

[NTSOG]

Fionn: "You may think it's not fair but it is what it is. As I said before the laws need to be tightened up and made clearer."

I think it is absolutely fair that any person [regardless of what 'diagnosis' they may or may not have] who is receiving any therapeutic psychiatric or psychological treatment 'within the last 5 years' must declare that treatment as part of his/her application for a firearms licence.

As for declaring any 'serious injury' in Tasmania would that include a broken collar bone such as when I crashed my bike when out training or the fractured right fibula when my mare bucked me off her back? How about burns when my petrol MF 35 tractor caught fire or a ruptured disc in the lower back from restraining a violent and large client? It sounds like bureaucracy running amok in Tasmania!

Jim