Once again you are making blanket statements. I said that they can exist meaning if you put enough due process protections a red flag law could be created that is constitutional. Making a blanket statement that all red flag laws are unconstitutional ignores that reality.
Why do you feel the need to repeat yourself over and over on this issue?
We know what you said, and we also know "if you put enough due process protections" can't be done / hasn't been done -- i.e. is not possible. That's not reality -- it's your "concept car" of a constitutional red flag law -- it does not exist anywhere except your thoughts. Yet, you call something that "could be created" reality. You obviously don't understand that reality is not something you believe can exist. It exists, or it doesn't. A "possibility", no matter how attainable it may be, is not reality.
A shit sandwich doesn't taste like shit
if you take the shit out of it .... but doesn't that make it NOT a shit sandwich?
It's basic logic. What might exist has to be within the realm of what's possible. We disagree that there is a way to create red flag laws while simultaneously providing actual due process. You keep arguing it's possible, but you've yet to give an example where that's been done. It's reasonable to assume, then, that if it could have been done, it already would have been. Yet, here we are -- with you repeating yourself again.
Possibilists claim that we can: we must simply broaden our understanding of reality,
of what there is in the broadest sense, beyond the actual, beyond what actually exists,
so that it also includes the merely possible. In particular, says the possibilist, there are
merely possible people, things that are not, in fact, people but which could have been.
So, for the possibilist, (4) is true after all so long as we acknowledge that reality also
includes possibilia, things that are not in fact actual but which could have been; things that
do not in fact exist alongside us in the concrete world but which could have. Actualism is
(at the least) the denial of possibilism; to be an actualist is to deny that there are any possibilia.
Put another way, for the actualist, there is no realm of reality, or being, beyond actual existence;
to be is to exist, and to exist is to be actual. In this article, we will investigate the origins and
nature of the debate between possibilists and actualists.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/possibilism-actualism/You should read that entire article. Maybe you'll learn something about the difference between reality vs. possibility.