[amundsentb]

You don't respond to his claims,

well intentioned, ripe for abuse, unconstitutional, requires due process to remove.

Does this mean that you agree with them and are still willing to forego due process because of the purported benefits you list?

[qtplatypus]

They did respond to the claim of "requires due process to remove" red flag laws are temporary so in order to remove them all that is needed is the passage of time.

There hasn't been a test of the constitutionality of red flag laws with regards to red flag laws. However there is clearly a "compelling government interest" and it could be argued that it is the least restrictive in order achieve this goal.

[naasking]

> red flag laws are temporary so in order to remove them all that is needed is the passage of time.

Prison time is temporary, so in order to remove your incarceration all that is needed is the passage of time, and then you're free!

[mises]

"Just wait to get your rights back" is not a great plan. Habeas corpus could be the nearest precedent - you can't lock some one up for a year and claim he just needs to wait. More importantly, once you're in the justice system, it's all but impossible to get out. The accused will inevitable be forced to somehow prove he's not a homicial maniac, because the premise of "flagging" is guilty until proven innocent. That's supposed to be what judges are for, but still, it's not perfect.

[fiter]

In this case the removal is referring to the removal of the right. So, red flag laws do not require time to remove your right to own guns while they do require time to restore your right.

[dsfyu404ed]

>red flag laws are temporary so in order to remove them all that is needed is the passage of time.

That's totally BS and everyone knows it. Nobody ever got back something that was taken by police without fighting an uphill legal battle.

[paggle]

In the US, these absolutely don’t need due process to remove. You are only protected against deprivation of life, liberty, or property (without compensation) by the Fifth Amendment. Your right to enter the US or fly on a plane is not protected by due process.

[deathanatos]

It is not an explicitly enumerated right, but it is a right. It is or was considered so basic that it need not be explicitly enumerated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saenz_v._Roe

> Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, found that although the "right to travel" was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the concept was "firmly embedded in our jurisprudence."

As evidence of how these can be so easily abused, I present that time the government prevented an American citizen from entering the country to testify in a trial involving her mother against the Government about being on the No Fly list!: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131208/00164525497/witne... or https://papersplease.org/wp/2013/12/07/no-fly-trial-day-5-pa... or https://www.courthousenews.com/government-secrecy-vexes-judg...

[mises]

America is based on the idea that rather than having an enumerated list, you enumerate the most fundamental and simply say the feds have no right to trample on any thing not explicitly given them in the constitution.

[rileymat2]

What is the definition of liberty? It seems travel would fall under it?

[paggle]

No, it’s imprisonment.

[JumpCrisscross]

> it’s imprisonment

This punts the question. What is imprisonment if not a restriction on free movement and association?

[Sacho]

All of these cases sounds like "administrative proceedings", which according to Cornell LII, have a (somewhat controversial) history of limitation due to the 5th?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/a...