Skip to comments.Arlington Heights, IL man, police in dispute over confiscating his guns
Posted on 06/11/2013 8:29:01 AM PDT by KeyLargo
Arlington Heights man, police in dispute over confiscating his guns
By Melissa Silverberg
Arthur Lovi sat down with a therapist one day last August to talk about some things that were bothering him. He had high blood pressure, and his physician suggested he talk to someone.
He already spoke to a VA psychiatrist once a month he has persistent memories from his days as an Air Force crash rescue helicopter pilot in the 1960s but he agreed. He'd been through a lot lately and figured it couldn't hurt to get some of it out.
"I felt like the weight of the world was on my shoulders," he said.
Lovi told her about the loss that had been all around him the past few years: his mother, a 3-year-old granddaughter who drowned, a son-in-law lost to a drug overdose, and worst of all, his wife of 33 years.
Cindy had died nine years ago, but to Lovi it was still raw. She was always tired and bruised easily. When he finally persuaded her to get checked out, she was told she had a cold, probably caught from one of her students at Forest View Alternative Center.
Unsatisfied, the next day Lovi made her see another doctor who gave her the correct, but heartbreaking, diagnosis: leukemia. Cindy died a few weeks later. She was 53.
Lovi told the therapist about Cindy's death and his bitterness over the incorrect diagnosis.
"I'll have hard feelings about it until the day I die," Lovi says now. "Not that a day would make a difference, but maybe it would have. I'll never know."
After the session, Lovi's therapist was concerned. She called the Arlington Heights police to report he had made a threat against the first doctor who saw his wife.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailyherald.com ...
Arthur Lovi is suing the Arlington Heights police for what he says was an illegal search of his home and seizing of three antique guns, including a double barrel musket thats more than 100 years old.
Arthur Lovi is suing the Arlington Heights police for what he says was an illegal search of his home and seizing of three antique guns, including a double barrel musket that's more than 100 years old.
There is an easy way to tell if someone is mentally ill.
If they visit a psychiatrist voluntarily.
Psychiatrists are now Government pimps.
“But that night about 11 p.m. there was a knock at Lovis door. His son answered and saw four or five police officers standing outside.
Two days later, Lovi called the police about his guns, and an officer came to his house. He says the officer turned the conversation to his late wife, and Lovi got upset. The officer determined he needed a psychiatric examination, but again, the two reports of the situation differ.
Lovis suit alleges police threatened that if he didnt go into the ambulance willingly, they would handcuff him and physically put him in the ambulance.”
You’re crazy if you see a psychiatrist.
I am a 30 year retired vet and unfortunately see the VA medical system on occasion for several service connected disabilities. On my last few visits I began to notice every doctor, PA, or Nurse Practitioner always asks you how are you feeling. I always say fine but it doesn't end there. They start into the line of questioning like have you felt anxious in the last 30 days? Tired? Have you felt depressed?
I always say, "Listen, I feel fine. The best I have ever felt in my entire life."
Then they get on to the business at hand. It is scary and all vets that are treated at the VA need to be well aware of this strategy.
The HHS mandate requiring employers to pay for abortion in violation of their religious beliefs is one of many shocking and direct violations of the First Amendment.
Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Stealing this man's guns because he's sad over the loss of his wife and foolish enough to talk with a psychiatrist is one of many shocking and direct violations of the Second Amendment.
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The NSA's metadata collection of cell phone and Internet records on all Americans is one of many shocking and direct violations of the Fourth Amendment.
Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
There are multiple violations here, but the Kelo decision allowing the taking of private property at well below market rates to give that property to private developers is probably the most shocking and direct violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Is there any objective person who believes the George Zimmerman trial is anything but one of the many shocking and direct violations of the Sixth Amendment.
Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Is there any objective person who believes the ObamaCare fines are not excessive and thus not one of the many shocking and direct violations of the Eighth Amendment?
Amendments IX, X: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The vast majority of what the federal government does today is outside the enumerated powers of Article 1, Section 8 and are thus a shocking and direct violation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
____________________________________________________________ This is almost what one could call a pattern - a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object . . .
Several ways. If they are homosexual, jihadist, democrat/socialist/communist/Marxist...
Shrink’s office = Future front door to the re-education camp
Psychiatrists running to the police. Doctors asking if there are any guns in the home. Government taking over healthcare. Government using doctors to criminalize guns. Country heading to hell.
Another story involving a “low information voter”.
If I answer the door at 22:00 to a phalanx fo LEO, I’ll be polite but they will ultimately go back to the precinct ^without^ entering my home.
I continue to drill my (now grown and out-of-the-house) kids that this is what they MUST do or they lose the republic they grew up in.
Jackboots picked the wrong man to try and show their 'authority'.
Sounds like anti-government trouble maker to me. How dare he question their authoriti. The nerve. Never see a shrink! Who knows if their assessment skills are correct? Not everybody finishes at the top of the class. I did get a gentle reminder from medicare the other day telling me that according to their records I haven’t been taking advantage of the services available to me. Included in the list were: ALCOHOL MISUSE SCREENING; DEPRESSION SCREENING; HIGH INTENSITY BEHAVIORAL COUNSELING. I’ll probably call today to schedule those up right away. NOT! Of course if I decline these services, do I go on yet another list as non-compliant?
Then lets begin with abolition of the Departments of Education, Labor and Agriculture.
They are certainly areas where the founders had experience, and gave the Fed gov no enumerated powers.
From my experience, it's a money-making scheme for the counselors.
I just got back from Afghanistan 3 months ago, and during the reverse inprocessing, the mental health counselors seemed a bit too anxious to talk to us.
They called me for several weeks afterwards wanting me to come in for an appointment. I finally had to tell them to stop calling.
They're just trying to justify their jobs, same as every government employee.
Environmentalists, animal worshipers, feminists, homosexual political activists, people in favor of illegal surveillance, people worried about overpopulation and people with attitudes against private sector Americans are mentally ill and dangerous to themselves and/or others.
‘Though a Veteran I have never, nor will I ever, seek assistance from the VA medical system. Thus, I am ignorant of procedures so I have a question. If a doctor, PA, or Nurse Practitioner were to suggest that a Vet see a shrink, counselor, whatever, and that Vet were to refuse, would that Vet lose any benefits or the ability to seek medical help from the VA?
Now they must have bunch of college edumakated kiddie cops with BA degrees in Criminal Justice and a minor in Sociology -- They know all about that Law Enforcement stuff -- 'It's in the book'
I looked Art up to see what his address is in Arlington Heights because I grew up there in the 1950’s. An idyllic town of about 28,000 back then. Turns out he lives about 5 blocks from where I grew up — beautiful upper-middle class neighborhood. I can just see 4 cops showing up at this man’s house and coaxing him to gain access to his home and encouraging him to get a psych evaluation. What has this world come to? I hope he gets the satisfaction he deserves through the courts. Sounds like he will not go quietly into the night...
“If they thought he might have been a threat to somebody, then it’s their job to go and do whatever is possible to prevent anyone from getting hurt.”....BUT,...but.. the Supreme Court already said the Police are not under any legal responsibility to protect you from a crime unless they see it. I’s cornfused.
Please add Dept. of Energy to the list. DOE was chartered with one task, to reduce/eliminate our dependence on "foreign" oil. After thirty-six years and at an annual cost of 20 to 30 billion dollars our imported oil consumption has increased by more than 300%. At the same time we have virtually stopped commercialization of nuclear power.
PS DOE was another of Jimmy Carter's great ideas, that alone should justify scuttling the money pit that is DOE.
I’m also beginning to think that “threatening” someone with a search warrant is a denial of civil rights under color of authority.
“I did get a gentle reminder from medicare the other day telling me that according to their records I havent been taking advantage of the services available to me. “
If anyone you know is on Medicare advise them not to participate in the Medicare “Wellness Exam”. It is not a physical exam, but instead an observation of your behavior and questioning, such as “how do your feel”?, are you depressed”?, “Are you happy”?, “Are you sad”?, including a written test of your mental state conducted by an authorized Medicare clinic nurse. All information about you is documented in the Medicare database.
I do believe that the “wellness exam” was included in the list of services I hadn’t “taken advantage” of. Non-compliant insuree I guess.
If I were Lord High Grand Poo-Bah In Charge Of Everything, I would explicitly state in law that if action by a government employee which would require a person's consent, the employee should be required to show that any "consent" which was received was freely given, and could not plausibly have been motivated by a belief that failure to offer such consent would result retaliation.