So I did a bad thing

[Half Fast]

No doubt. But it's a bit disingenuous to say on one hand feds allow him to play with bombs while disallowing him to fly a Cessna 150. The feds allowing him to play with bombs are likely not aware of his history of depression or suicide. At least he didn't mention disclosing it as part of the process,

Correct. Because they don't look into it, nor require a medical exam like aviation does, and there isn't any justification to begin doing so as far as special weapons are concerned. The whole aviation medical process is over the top for purposes of private flying.

The point is that the Feds don't spend all the effort looking into one's mental health for weapon ownership that they do for flying. Several reasons come to mind.

1) Different origins. FAA medicals had their birth in military flight physicals. Owning arms has been around a bit longer and predates modern medicine.
2) Keeping arms is a right guaranteed by the Consitution and has a much higher threshold for limitations than flying. Flying an airplane is not a right protected by the Constitution.
3) There's very little history of people killing other people with things like mortars, outside a war. Airplane deaths are much more common. (And frankly, there's scant evidence to indicate a class 3 medical prevents aviation fatalities.)

 

[ProjectInfinity1]

Did you voluntarily disclose your mental health history?

Not to the ATF, but I did when the FBI asked to talk to me for 2 hours after someone from this forum sent in an anonymous tip in May of 2018 or 2019 (I don’t remember which year as everything has been a blur with non stop covid, financial, and Protest news. 2020 has been one hell of a wild ride).

I even still have the agents business card.

 

[ProjectInfinity1]

Correct. Because they don't look into it, nor require a medical exam like aviation does, and there isn't any justification to begin doing so as far as special weapons are concerned. The whole aviation medical process is over the top for purposes of private flying.

The point is that the Feds don't spend all the effort looking into one's mental health for weapon ownership that they do for flying. Several reasons come to mind.

1) Different origins. FAA medicals had their birth in military flight physicals. Owning arms has been around a bit longer and predates modern medicine.
2) Keeping arms is a right guaranteed by the Consitution and has a much higher threshold for limitations than flying. Flying an airplane is not a right protected by the Constitution.
3) There's very little history of people killing other people with things like mortars, outside a war. Airplane deaths are much more common. (And frankly, there's scant evidence to indicate a class 3 medical prevents aviation fatalities.)

Bingo ^ and hell I could even have a flamethrower and napalm shipped to my door in 48 states with no paperwork what so ever if I really wanted one. (Only exceptions are California and Maryland).

I think the medical policy is perfectly reasonable for passenger air travel, and maybe even to medium cargo jets to avoid a nightmare german wings scenario.

But it’s ridiculous if all other competency standards are met, for examaners not to at least have discretion, if you don’t want to remove class 3 certification all together.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

No doubt. But it's a bit disingenuous to say on one hand feds allow him to play with bombs while disallowing him to fly a Cessna 150. The feds allowing him to play with bombs are likely not aware of his history of depression or suicide. At least he didn't mention disclosing it as part of the process,

I'm not sure if you truly mean "disingenuous" here? That would sort of be an attack on the speaker and I don't think we know enough about him or having any reason to believe he was lying. See the definition - "Definition of disingenuous : lacking in candoralso : giving a false appearance of simple frankness".

Did you voluntarily disclose your mental health history?

He is under no obligation to do so as part of that form, I don't believe.

Getting a bit off in the weeds from what I think is his main point - namely - that there is a strong difference between Federal agencies in the level of assurance of safety required to engage in potentially risk activities relative to their level of risk. I don't think he meant that the same people were somehow being inconsistent.

 

[Morgan3820]

My Mama always said to me “Life ain’t fair”.
Don’t expect it to be and you will be less disappointed.

 

[Brad Z]

I'm not sure if you truly mean "disingenuous" here? That would sort of be an attack on the speaker and I don't think we know enough about him or having any reason to believe he was lying. See the definition - "Definition of disingenuous : lacking in candoralso : giving a false appearance of simple frankness".

I meant exactly as written. The poster was suggesting that the feds are okay with him handling explosives with his medical condition, but not okay with him flying. The reality is the feds who authorized him to handle explosives (the BATFE) is not aware of his mental health history; they are only aware that he has no criminal history associated with it. Big difference.

IHe is under no obligation to do so as part of that form, I don't believe.

Of course not. The difference is that the BATFE is up against constitutional and legal limitations in what they can ask. Conversely, Congress requires the FAA to conduct medical screenings which include mental health diagnoses.

 

[Palmpilot]

Just out of curiosity, I looked up "ingenuous" (no "dis").

ingenuous
adjective (1)
in·gen·u·ous | \ in-ˈjen-yə-wəs

, -yü-əs \
Definition of ingenuous
(Entry 1 of 2)

1a : showing innocent or childlike simplicity and candidness

//her ingenuous thirst for experience— Christopher Rawson​

b : lacking craft or subtlety

//ingenuous in their brutality​

2 obsolete : noble, honorable

Definition of ingenuous
(Entry 2 of 2)

obsolete
: ingenious

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I meant exactly as written. The poster was suggesting that the feds are okay with him handling explosives with his medical condition, but not okay with him flying. The reality is the feds who authorized him to handle explosives (the BATFE) is not aware of his mental health history; they are only aware that he has no criminal history associated with it. Big difference.

Yes, but I don't understand how that makes the speaker disingenuous, i.e. lacking in candor or giving a false appearance of simple frankness? I suspect you mean there is some other problem with his argument here. Like it is not a proper comparison of like items, or something like that. But don't really understand your meaning.

I mean, for him to say that "the Feds", meaning the Federal government as a whole, are ok with him handling explosives and are inconsistent with allowing him not to fly due to his medical condition, seems to me an open and honest argument. It doesn't strike me he is trying to be subtle or hide something about it.

One could perhaps argue that there is no requirement that the Federal government apply the same risk criteria to all activities, or that that would not be good policy, or that it is simply an unrealistic expectation given the size of the Federal government, all potential arguments. But none of those suggest to me disingenuity of the speaker.