I think all of you should listen carefully to every word Graham says in the video as related to the red flag grants.
He does not say that the gun owner would be subject to confiscation without a hearing.
He says that an initial hearing would be held without the owner (but presumably with those who are raising the red flag).
If the judge agrees there may be some threat, a second hearing would be held with the gun owner present BEFORE the guns are taken. Presumably, this second hearing would involving psychiatrists and questions that would reveal whether the gun owner is actually a threat to himself or others as the flag raisers have claimed.
If the owner is deemed a threat, THEN a warrant would be issued and the guns taken.
I think I read in another article that the gun owner would have a way to regain control of his guns later.
If the above is not the case, then I agree that this is unconstitutional. We do have other laws that seem that way to me, based on suspicion of ill intent…such as no-fly lists wherein people are not allowed to fly on commercial airlines and terrorist watch lists wherein people are designated as terrorists and subject to targeting by drone missiles. I am not against either of those existing because of the threats involved.
I am definitely against gun confiscation based solely on the word of a family member or a disgruntled neighbor diagnosing a gun owner with a psychiatric problem.
If all I had to do to keep someone from driving a vehicle on public roadways was to tell the police that I saw them texting while driving, there would be several of my associates using buses to get around. This is a ridiculous comparison to the red-flag proposal, but not far off.
Just as “guns do not kill people, crazy people using guns kill people” is true, so is “cars don’t kill people, crazy people driving cars kill people”.
Listen to what Graham actually said. If I misheard him, I retract my comments.