Red flag laws vary by state, all seek to prevent possession of firearms from unstable people. The problem is in the wording, and who thinks who is a threat. Due process is the big unknown here, and not much detail is provided when explaining the process. What happens here is someone reports a suspected threat, and a prosecutor or leo petitions a magistrate or judge for an order. The only thing the magistrate hears is the opinion of the leo, nothing from the accused, and that is where things get tricky. Action taken, depriving someone of property and rights without being heard can be taken in the name of expediency, that is where the argument was yesterday. I listened to some of it, and the lawyer that was arguing was a public defender, and I was wondering who was financing this, as it was such a no brainer case. This guy is a poster child for Career Criminal Magazine and why was he still able to run the streets and threaten people? The end justifies the means these days, and when you think about protecting the public you have to think about the plea deals for gang members who are caught shooting and drug dealers that rotate in and out.