Quote (NatureNames @ 18 Oct 2019 07:30)
These red flag laws have been challenged in courts before and courts ultimately said they are constitutional, often citing District of Columbia v. Heller. A notable part of the Heller case decision is quote:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
While this does not explicitly permit red flag laws I think it is vague enough to possibly make them permissable.
There is explicit constitutional protection of due process by the 5th and 14th amendment. The procedure described in the OP clearly violates this constitutional right of due process on multiple occasions.
Of course it can be constitutional to strip a member of the Stormfront or the Atomwaffen Division from his 2nd amendment rights if he is found guilty of severe crimes, or mentally unstable, or to be an imminent national security threat.
But those decisions have to come from a court, not from city hall or the local PD; and there has to be a way for the defendant to actually defend himself before being stripped of his 2nd amendment rights.
What would the left-leaning members of PaRD say if a very conservative local executive used these red flag laws to target anyone who ever expressed support for antifa or socialism? If this practice became established and accepted, there would be no guarantee that it would mostly target right-leaning individuals.
As Goom said, using ideology or political affiliations as the basis for deprivation of rights is the most slippery slope imaginable. Deprivation of rights should not happen without tangible reasons, punishing "thought crime" is a direct path into dystopia. And even then, even if thought crime was punishable and reason enough to take someone's guns away, it would still be unacceptable and unconstitutional for this to take place without due process.
This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 18 2019 01:59am