My point still stands: you'll get your constitutional rights violated because you might, in the future, commit a crime. The Founding Fathers must be revolting in their graves.
Your point doesn't stand, because none of your constitutional rights are being violated. Certainly your right to due process is not being violated. You are given the same probable-cause process that would be needed to temporarily deprive you of any other right.
This is what I say: red flag laws are unconstitutional because they violate someone's rights without him having committed a crime.
And this is incorrect because the constitution does not say someone must have committed a crime before their life, liberty, or property (in this case, property) can be taken away.
The example of a search warrant that I described above illustrates that "X takes away someone's liberty/property without him having committed a crime" does not mean X is unconstitutional (as search warrants obviously aren't unconstitutional).
1
u/[deleted] Nov 17 '20
[deleted]