Some thoughts on necessary criteria for them, particularly as they’re intended to apply to the mentally unstable.
- Define “mentally unstable”
- Identify which “mentally unstable” are dangerous and which are not
- Identify how the “dangerous mentally unstable” are to be disarmed without disarming—leaving defenseless—those around him
- Specify how quickly—including appeals—a court case must be finally decided and the “dangerous mentally unstable” gets his weapons back after successfully defending himself
- Specify how the “dangerous mentally unstable” will be made financially whole after winning his court case
- Specify how an accusation will be separated into a frivolous one and one made in good faith
- Specify the sanctions to be brought against the accuser if the “dangerous mentally unstable” wins his court case
- Identify how the “dangerous mentally unstable” gets his reputation and his life back after winning his court case, whether it was brought in good faith or bad
That’s just a start on the idiocy and intrinsically virtue-signaling nature of red flag laws.