Morning Musings: The B.O.I Is At It Again. Trump, Bondi & Red Flag Laws SMFH

You can't seize property without due process. Seems pretty simple but someone is always looking to defile the constitution to " protect" you.

You are responsible for you and yours safety. Everything else is just another step down the slippery slope to authoritarianism.

SMFH

*Whether red flag laws are constitutional is a hotly debated question in the U.S., and it hinges on how you interpret the Constitution, especially the Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. These laws, which vary by state, generally allow authorities to temporarily seize firearms from someone deemed a risk to themselves or others, often based on a petition from family or law enforcement, with a court order.
On one side, supporters argue they’re a practical way to prevent gun violence, like mass shootings or suicides, while still respecting due process since a judge typically has to sign off. They’d say the government’s interest in public safety can outweigh temporary restrictions on gun ownership, pointing to cases like District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), where the Supreme Court affirmed an individual right to bear arms but also said it’s not unlimited—regulations like background checks or restrictions on dangerous individuals have long been upheld.
On the flip side, critics say these laws violate core rights. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, and some argue that taking guns without a full trial or criminal conviction oversteps that. The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures gets cited too—grabbing someone’s property based on vague “risk” standards can feel like a stretch. Then there’s the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause: many red flag laws let seizure happen before a full hearing, which opponents call a constitutional foul. They’ll point to states like New York or California, where broad definitions of “threat” and ex parte orders (where the accused isn’t present) fuel accusations of overreach.
The Supreme Court hasn’t directly ruled on red flag laws yet, so there’s no definitive answer. Lower courts have mostly upheld them—like in Hope v. Raoul (2023) out of the Seventh Circuit, affirming Illinois’ version—but challenges keep bubbling up, especially after New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), where the Court tightened scrutiny on gun laws, asking if they match historical traditions of firearm regulation. Red flag laws are modern, so that historical test could trip them up in future cases.
It’s a split issue: depends on how much weight you give public safety versus individual rights, and the legal answer’s still in flux. What’s your take on where the line should be?