https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-the-dangerous-urge-to-do-somethingFast-forward to today, and we see the widespread and decidedly un-American reaction to the tragedies of El Paso and Dayton. Both mass murders were animated by hatred and planned by madness. But because both were carried out using weapons that look like those issued by the military, Democrats have called for the outright confiscation of these weapons.
Where is the constitutional authority for that? In a word: nowhere.
The government's job is to preserve personal liberty. Does it do its job when it weakens personal liberty instead? Stated differently, how does confiscating weapons from the law-abiding conceivably reduce the ability of madmen to get those weapons? When did madmen begin obeying gun laws?
These arguments against confiscation have largely resonated with Republicans. Yet – because they feel they must do something – they have fallen for the concept of limited confiscation, known by the euphemism of “red flag” laws.
The concept of a “red flag” law – which permits the confiscation of lawfully owned weapons from a person because of what the person might do – violates both the presumption of innocence and the due process requirement of proof of criminal behavior before liberty can be infringed.
We've been having debates in at least two threads regarding ERPOs and @Havok has been adamant regarding the lack of due process. Judge Napolitano agrees. There needs to be a constitutional challenge to these "Red Flag" laws. Is anyone aware of such challenges?