And honestly, I’m not really trying to argue it. I’m just pointing out that it’s already been going on for a long time. Getting a divorce and got custody issues? In some jurisdictions attorneys use an Ex Parte Order as a standard thing. Boom, you are prohibited from possessing a firearm. The first you hear of it is when the sheriff serves you. If you lose your hearing, which in some jurisdictions you almost always do because the standard of proof is merely a preponderance of evidence standard, then you can’t own a firearm for two years.
Did you and your old lady get in an argument in 1986 where the cops were called? Did they charge you with misdemeanor domestic violence? Were you embarrassed and just paid the ticket to get it over? Boom, you are now ex post facto prevented fro ever possessing a firearm.
Got a crazy and vindictive ex girlfriend who filed a bullschit protective order?
The list goes on. The Rubicon was crossed long ago. In that respect the red flag orders don’t operate any differently than lots of things they’ve already been doing for a long time.
The thing is, it doesn't matter how long they've been happening, they were and always will be wrong. Red Flags are simply more of the same. Getting raped in prison by a guy with a 10" dick might be more uncomfortable than getting raped by a 6" one. They're both still rape.
