I can't understand how any State that has or will implement these "Red Flag laws" won't have it overturn as violating several constitutional rights. In fact it's hard to understand how lawyers that review these bills before they are introduced, aren't vehemently opposing and pointing these violations out. I guess a tyrannical government will do whatever it takes to rescind the God given rights of law abiding citizens of our precious freedoms.
I can..... the whole bunch are in cahoots with each other in the Socialist movement. The Constitution means nothing but something to be overturned. Got to get all the guns first and Red Flag is a great start.
Agree, one way or another, there going after our guns, plain and simple.
It depends on the definition of mentally illness. Depression could be a form of mental illness, but that doesn’t make someone with depression a risk to go off doing a mass shooting. Unless diagnosed by medical professionals as mentally ill and a risk to society and to themself, just having some form of mental illness shouldn't automatically revoke an individual’s 2A rights. That’s what makes the whole mental illness & gun issue complex. I realize that you understand this and meant someone with severe mental illness and ruled as a danger to themself/society, and with this I agree. But I think these laws will eventually allow families, friends, or law enforcement, to be able to make a claim of someone’s mental state and have some Judge rule favorably on a Red Flag ruling without any medical evaluation whatsoever. It’s a very slippery slope.
I think it depends on how each State would write these so called "laws". It seems that they could (and most likely would), be written so that your stated possibility could most definitely happen, since they'd probably be vague in their construction and interpretation. Not only a rogue department, but people that have a beef with you could also level a complaint with the same thing happening. In these scenarios, your 2nd, 4th and 5th (potential others?) constitutional rights could be violated. From being considered guilty with property seized "before" due process, to the right to have and bear arms violated with the 'illegal" confiscation of firearms. From what I also understand, is that only a Judge needs to sign off on the complaint for LEO to then take action. No medical diagnosis undertaken, and as you stated, once firearms are seized and if you are deemed commitment and sane, good luck getting the property that was seized back anytime soon, if at all. These laws, for the most part, came about after the Parkland school shooting in Florida. Apparently there had been several complaints about the shooter (including previous remarks of shooting up a school), that if these laws were in place, they could have quickly acted to remove the weapon(s) from him (citing medical diagnosis taking too long thus not being able to stop a crime from occurring). Similarly, this law could have been used to potentially stop the Virginia Tech college shooting, as the shooter had sought mental health care previously. To be able to stop these and like individuals before they committed their violent crimes would have been a good thing. The problem is that laws written like this could also be used nefariously, impacting law abiding citizens that aren't mentally ill and violating constitutional right as well. It's why the issues of Mental Health and Gun violence is such a complex problem to try and solve while also trying to prevent innocent people from being "caught up in it" while trying to address it.
