June 16, 2013

Illinois veteran had to fight for return of antiques

Gun control enthusiasts have frequently mocked Second Amendment supporters by saying they only have the right to a musket, which was the weapon of choice at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted.

However, now lawmakers have taken to even confiscating these weapons.

The Daily Herald reports Arthur Lovi, a resident of Arlington Heights, Ill., who is also an Air Force veteran, was speaking to a VA psychiatrist about tragedies in his life, including the loss of his wife of 33 years.

Although she had died nine years before, Lovi said the wound from her death was still raw. Even to this day, he remained somewhat bitter after a doctor incorrectly diagnosed her as having a cold after she complained of being tired and bruising easily. The following day another doctor informed her she had leukemia, and she died a few weeks later.

“I’ll have hard feelings about it until the day I die,” Lovi told the Daily Herald. “Not that a day would make a difference, but maybe it would have. I’ll never know.”

Followings his appointment with the psychiatrist, the therapist contacted the police to tell them Lovi had made a threat against the doctor who made the first diagnosis. However, she went on to tell them she did not consider him to be a threat, but simply did so because it was part of her job.

Th report resulted in several officers showing up at his house later that night and confiscating his three antique firearms, which included a musket that was over 100 years old.

According to Lovi, two days later he asked about his firearms, and an officer came to his house to talk about it. He said after the officer turned the conversation to his wife, he became upset. The officer demanded Lovi undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Following the evaluation, it was determined he was not a danger to himself or others.

In spite of the clean bill of health, it was only after Lovi obtained a lawyer two months later that his firearms were returned. Lovi has since filed a lawsuit against the Arlington Heights Police Department alleging one of the weapons was damaged and citing emotional damages as well as violations of his Second and Fourth Amendment rights.

Lovi’s case is just the latest of a disturbing trend of government officials using mental health claims as an excuse to strip law-abiding citizens of the Second Amendment rights.

After the massacre of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., Democrats attempted to pass a series of federal gun laws that critics say would have done nothing to prevent the shooting.

In both the Sandy Hook shooting as well as other mass shootings, including the Aurora theater shooting in Colorado and Virginia Tech, the shooters had a history of mental illness. However, in each of these instances health care officials did not think the individuals displayed sufficient signs of violence to report their patients to authorities.

This prompted calls from lawmakers, including Republicans who are normally opposed to gun control, to call for an examination over how to prevent the mentally ill from having access to firearms.

At face value, the issue resonates with the American people, primarily because for many the face of Jack Nicholson in “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” comes to mind when they think of the mentally ill.

However, the problem is government officials often have a far different definition of who is mentally ill and should not have access to firearms than that of the average American.

“I think the gun control crowd, including legislators, are going to keep pushing on that area because they have successfully confused a lot of people as to whether it is a valid issue or not and whether it is useful for law enforcement,” said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. “As long as they can flummox people I think they’ll continue pushing. They’re very opportunistic and will do whatever it takes to move the ball forward for them. They’re pretty good about that.”

WND recently reported that under Operation Vigilant Eagle, the Obama administration has performed surveillance on military veterans who express views critical of the government.

Attorney John Whitehead, founder of the Rutherford Institute, said the NSA is using its snooping authority to gather data on Americans, including posts to various website to provide a pretext for a later diagnosis of mental illness against veterans.

“The FBI and the Secret Service are showing up to request an interview to question specific Internet posts the veteran has placed on websites such as Facebook,” Whitehead explained, noting that the agencies are looking for “anti-Obama views that can be interpreted to reflect psychological problems of sufficient seriousness to disqualify the veteran from ever owning a firearm.”

The Veteran’s Administration has also begun taking action to declare returning veterans mentally incompetent and threatened to remove their decision-making authority.

In February, Investors.com reported a complaint by Michael Connelly, executive director of the United States Justice Foundation, over veterans getting letters from the Veterans Administration informing them they have been declared mentally incompetent.

The vet must provide evidence to the contrary within 60 days. If the vet desires a hearing, he or she must inform the Veterans Administration within 30 days.

“A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2),” the letter reads.

Gun confiscation using a broad definition of mental illness is not just a federal tactic; several states have also done so for mental conditions that most Americans would not consider to be a dangerous threat.

In New York, following the passage of the gun control legislation in response to the Sandy Hook shooting, the legislature passed a law prohibiting the mentally ill from owning firearms.

Under the state’s mental health provisions, law-enforcement officials confiscated the guns of David Lewis after they discovered he was on anti-anxiety medication. Following widespread media attention, local officials returned Lewis’ firearms an announced they had made a “mistake.”

Earlier this year California passed a bill allocating $24 million for officials to confiscate firearms from those who legally are not allowed to have them, including those who have received intensive treatment for a mental disorder.

The situation is even more alarming when considering exactly who is defined as being mentally ill.

The American Psychiatric Association’s new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders has just expanded the list of mental disorders by declaring normal human actions and emotions as mental illness.

For instance, a child throwing a temper tantrum is now considered to be suffering from “disruptive mood dysregulation disorder.” If a person is suffering grief over the death of a loved one he now has a “major depressive disorder,” while a person who eats more than he needs at a buffet restaurant now suffers from “binge eating disorder.”

Pratt said Republican lawmakers seem to believe that by calling for restricting the mentally ill from owning firearms they are standing for Second Amendment rights while also promoting public safety. However, he says they are sadly mistaken if they think they deflect the issue from the ultimate goal of leftists, which is gun confiscation.

“If they think this is going to deflect from the front of gun control they are actually walking right into a trap,” Pratt said. “It is as if they were the fly listening to the spider inviting them to come into his parlor.”

He said the media hypes the mental health issue.

“I don’t think it is an issue, I think it’s phony. Psychiatry is not an exact science,” Pratt explained. “It cannot predict with any certainty if someone is going off to do something violent. The people who have committed these mass murders generally don’t have any kind of a record of prior violent acts.

“It’s an extremely irrelevant issue, and conservatives make a big mistake by jumping on the mental health bandwagon. It’s not the first time we have used the enemy’s weapons and we pay for it every time.”