Abstract
The psychological assessment of firearm applicants is crucial for public safety, yet the scientific validity of the methods mandated by law in Austria and other European nations remains inadequate. The study emphasised the need to redefine approaches to the psychological assessment of individuals applying for firearm ownership toward greater scientific validity and interdisciplinary coherence. The study aimed to critically evaluate the diagnostic and evaluation foundations of the assessment framework enacted by the Austrian Weapons Act, highlighting scientific and legal deficiencies. The evaluation was conducted through a critical analysis of the legal regulations, a formal-logical deconstruction of the mandated test combinations, and a systematic review of the psychometric properties and forensic suitability of each prescribed evaluation instrument. The problematic legal framework, which mandated outdated and scientifically unsubstantiated test series, was analysed. The logical inconsistencies and false equivalences created by the legally permissible combinations of different psychological tests were described. The study stated that the individual instruments are unsuitable for forensic assessment due to outdated norms, a lack of predictive validity for firearm-related risk behaviour, and susceptibility to response distortion. The study further detailed how the reliance on static, actuarial assessment methods contradict modern, evidence-based standards in forensic psychology. The results of this research can be used by legislators, legal experts, and clinical psychologists to reform the existing assessment procedures, thereby enhancing the scientific accuracy and legal defensibility of firearms licensing processes