TexasCHLforum.com

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 1:14 am

srothstein wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:24 pm

MaduroBU wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 12:26 am Alito's concurrence stated that Red Flag laws are separate and that he expects them to come before the Court, but that this opinion does not specifically address them.

SNIP

Red Flag laws are on pretty solid ground when it comes to search and seizure. The judge will listen to an officer reporting on what they found and determine if there is probable cause to say the person is a danger. Remember that probable cause is not proof, just that it is more likely than not. I think the better attack on them is the denial of due process by not letting the respondent know in advance and present a defense. And I have to admit that this is a weak attack because no one gets to present a defense to a search warrant as a general rule, or even a defense to an indictment before a grand jury. It might be allowed but doesn't have to be.

I agree with the highlighted statement, "Red Flag laws" seem like a 5th Amendment violation to me. Not so much the initial part, which you pointed out as well, but that there is no EVENTUAL due process to defend one's self such as at a trial. Someone makes a claim, the court orders a seizure, and it's a done deal, end of story. The person subjected to the RFL never gets their "day in court". And that is flat out just wrong.

I think it's very similar to the Civil Asset Forfeiture laws. In both cases "probable cause" is all that is needed for the government to seize your property and it becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible, for you to get all of that property back. So we have reduced the standard for the government to punish you by seizing your wealth to the level of probable cause only. This is not due process, IMHO, and is a clear constitutional violation.

The problem is that I believe there is bad precedent here that goes against the people, at least with regard to Civil Asset Forfeiture laws.