I just want to attempt to offer an explanation of what actually constitutes due process, although I'm not sure that actual facts will sway anyone's opinion.
The red flag laws which, for example, Rubio, was championing do have due process built into them. Here is a link to the actual text of the bill:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...te-bill/7/text
If you read the text, what the bill requires is that in essence, the petitioner(s) get a warrant to seize the weapon. Why they don't use the term warrant is beyond me. Perhaps because this is an administrative action? I don't know.
The 4th Amendment says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The first consideration is where does the warrant issue from? The courts, more specifically, judges.
A second consideration is that of probable cause, what is it? A working definition of probable cause: The totality of the circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime (offense) has, is, or will be committed.
In the 'Rubio Bill' the elements to be considered in determining if PC exists are listed:
In determining whether to issue an extreme risk protection order, the court may consider relevant evidence, such as—
“(aa) a recent threat or act of violence by the respondent against himself or herself or others;
“(bb) a threat or act of violence by the respondent against himself or herself or others in the past 12 months;
“(cc) evidence of a serious mental illness;
“(dd) a previously issued extreme risk protection order or a violation of a previously issued extreme risk protection order;
“(ee) whether the respondent has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence or other violence;
“(ff) whether the respondent has used or threatened to use weapons against himself or herself or others;
“(gg) the unlawful use of a firearm by the respondent;
“(hh) the recurring use or threat of use of physical force against another person or stalking another person;
“(ii) corroborated evidence of the abuse of controlled substances or alcohol by the respondent;
“(jj) relevant information from family or household members concerning the respondent; and
“(kk) witness testimony taken while the witness is under oath relating to the matter before the court;
It has to be clearly understood that the decision to issue an 'extreme risk protection order' is reserved for a judge having jurisdiction. This is no different procedure than an officer getting an arrest or search warrant.
Furthermore, the 'Rubio Bill' gives the respondent the:
HEARING TO VACATE ORDER.—
“(i) IN GENERAL.—A respondent may request not less than 1 hearing to vacate an extreme risk protection order issued against the respondent.
“(ii) HEARING.—Not later than 30 days after the date on which a petitioner is notified of the request of the respondent to vacate an extreme risk protection order, the court shall conduct a hearing on the request.
If folks don't understand that due process is upheld by the 'Rubio Bill' they either haven't read the bill, or don't understand the definition and application of due process.
The only thing this bill does is give family members, friends, etc. a formal avenue to enter the court system to petition for the removal of weapons from an unstable/threatening person. Plus, it gives law enforcement officers a responsibility and framework to operate within when they are apprised of such risks - thus eliminating the common lazy/incompetent popo answer 'it's a civil matter.'