Not all states have a hearing 1st, some issue an order without the person being heard until after the order is served and getting property back is difficult, it's guilty until proven innocent.
" Red flag laws, also known as
extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs), do not always guarantee a "day in court" immediately upon the initial
ex parte order. The initial order, which can be issued without the individual being present, is often temporary, lasting a week or two, during which time a hearing is scheduled where the individual can present their case. "
This is guilty until proven innocent and in California anyone can make a redflag complaint against anyone else.
There are already laws in every State to have a person who is a danger to self and/or others committed for observation, but some States with redflag laws and liberal political activist judges will take a simple ex-lovers complaint about " feelings " as justification for doing the " safe thing " and violating a persons Constitutional rights, it's ridiculous to take guns and leave a dangerous person with car keys, gas cans and matches, hatchets, steak knives, hands and feet....... get the idea.
RedFlag laws are about stealing firearms ( property ) from people without giving that person due process ( a day in court 1st )
If the person is really a suspected danger to self/others and someone is willing to swear to that effect under penalty of law, then take the person into protective custody for observation. Don't just exploit emotions to pass a law to steal property ( serve a hidden agenda ) without due process ( a day in court 1st where the person is heard i.e. a hearing )
So do I think illegal invaders have a right to a day in court 1st, not if they aren't being deprived of liberty, being deported they can have all the liberty they desire, in their own country. That said I think we already give illegals due process before they are deported.
But what about Garcia and other violent criminal illegals sent to El Salvador.... AEA