A response to a friend's post regarding Red Flag Laws for firearm confiscation

Please realize what you described is an ex parte event that leads to confiscation. I'd say this is exactly a violation of the Fifth Amendment. Further, it is only after confiscation that there is a hearing with the accused. Anyone who would support this hopefully realizes the type of precedent it represents. But, for furtherance of discussion...

"Danger to self or others" What does this mean, exactly? Does the type of danger make a difference or is it all the same? Who gets to decide this? A judge? They know the law but what do they know about the assessment and prediction of violence? This is part of what I do professionally, and I can tell you that it is far from perfect. This isn't like a mental health arrest where there is a petition to hold an individual involuntarily and then the individual is assessed by a professional able to provide a well reasoned & supported argument for depriving someone of their freedom for 72 or more hours.

"Based on statements and actions" Still seems too vague to hang civil liberties on. To what levels do these need rise? As I said earlier, if someone threatens violence with a firearm, I'm all for removing the threat. But how do we jump to a conclusion to violate civil rights if a threat is made that either doesn't include the means or the means is something other than a firearm? What if the reporting party is lying or otherwise misrepresenting the situation? What if the person has no other history of violence?

"After a set time, the guns are returned..." How much time? Are they just returned (someone delivers them back to me)? Do I go somewhere and sign a release? Or as I suspect (based on the bureaucracy of gov't & anecdotal reports), there is a long a convoluted process for retrieving my personal property. And what is my recourse if the process is so onerous that I obtain legal counsel to secure my personal property.

The Devil, I'm told, is in the details. I'm not sure of that, but I'm always very wary of anyone who legislates to manage my life with this level of wiggle room.

I don't have an absolute problem with separating a "dangerous" person from firearms. I'll even go so far as to say there could be some circumstances that rise to the level of "greater good." These are very far and few between because at my core I will always choose a little more discomfort & danger over the loss of liberty.