In May 2021, the SCOTUS heard the case Caniglia v. Strom.  The ruling was 9-0 and stated that such actions -- taking of one's guns with no crime committed and no due process prior to confiscation -- are an overt violation of the Fourth Amendment and are obviously unconstitutional.

https://libertas.org/personal-freedom/supreme-court-ruling-delegitimizes-red-flag-laws/

Now, the Dems in power in Congress and the White House want to literally bribe states to pass their own red flag laws.  Anyone else fail to see this as an end-run around the Constitution based on the SCOTUS ruling which prohibits the feds from enacting such laws?

Is there no law against the Federal Government paying state governments to violate the civli rights of their citizens?

That case is not based around any red flag type of legislation just cops overreaching.
The cops did not oobtain type of court order.

Though the case does have implications for red flag laws, the claim that SCOTUS ruled red flag laws unconstitutional is incorrect. In fact the ruling specifically says that their decision does not address red flag issues. (Page 3 of the decision)

If you want to convince people that they should never register their guns then Red Flag Laws are a great way to do it.

Unintended consequences = the rule of law undermines itself and makes the nation much more dangerous

Hopefully now that attempts are being made on lives of SC justices and the media ignores it they will pull their heads out of their bums.

That case is not based around any red flag type of legislation just cops overreaching.
The cops did not oobtain type of court order.

Though the case does have implications for red flag laws, the claim that SCOTUS ruled red flag laws unconstitutional is incorrect. In fact the ruling specifically says that their decision does not address red flag issues. (Page 3 of the decision)

There doesn't NEED to be any red flag laws involved in the case for the SCOTUS to rule such laws are unconstitutional. 

So, you'd be okay with Cops getting a warrant to conduct electronic surveillance on you without any basis -- i.e. evidence you're involved in something illegal?

Why not red flags for every law on the books?  The Cops can just ask for warrants because someone reported that you "just don't act right."

If you want to convince people that they should never register their guns then Red Flag Laws are a great way to do it.

Unintended consequences = the rule of law undermines itself and makes the nation much more dangerous

Hopefully now that attempts are being made on lives of SC justices and the media ignores it they will pull their heads out of their bums.

Good luck prosecuting not registering as well due to that pesky 5th amendment thing.

There doesn't NEED to be any red flag laws involved in the case for the SCOTUS to rule such laws are unconstitutional. 

So, you'd be okay with Cops getting a warrant to conduct electronic surveillance on you without any basis -- i.e. evidence you're involved in something illegal?

Why not red flags for every law on the books?  The Cops can just ask for warrants because someone reported that you "just don't act right."

Like rubber stamp FISA.

Good luck prosecuting not registering as well due to that pesky 5th amendment thing.

Just tell 'em you are gender fluid and voted for Joe. They will let you right out.

https://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/over-75-of-felony-firearms-cases-dismissed-discharged-or-diverted-under-sfda-chesa-boudin/

There doesn't NEED to be any red flag laws involved in the case for the SCOTUS to rule such laws are unconstitutional. 

So, you'd be okay with Cops getting a warrant to conduct electronic surveillance on you without any basis -- i.e. evidence you're involved in something illegal?

Why not red flags for every law on the books?  The Cops can just ask for warrants because someone reported that you "just don't act right."

The Cops can just ask for warrants because someone reported that you "just don't act right."

That Rubicon has been crossed years ago.  Drugs laws.  Cops don't even need a warrant
to take your money, cars, guns, house, property; They just do it.  If you trust a cop to be honest
just review HPD,both yours and mine as to their "ethics".
Red flag is a little slower in that they need a warrant, but FISA courts proved how useless that "protection" is.
I think a little anarchy is in order or at a minimum passive- aggression towards any government 
agent.
 

There doesn't NEED to be any red flag laws involved in the case for the SCOTUS to rule such laws are unconstitutional. 

So, you'd be okay with Cops getting a warrant to conduct electronic surveillance on you without any basis -- i.e. evidence you're involved in something illegal?

Why not red flags for every law on the books?  The Cops can just ask for warrants because someone reported that you "just don't act right."

You claimed they ruled on red flag laws when in their very decision they said they weren't.

Of course I wouldn't be ok with cops getting a warrant to look at me without any evidence but that isn't what red flag laws are. Cops don't go to judges and say, they want to sieze guns because some "got them realtor eyes" and the judge just gives.it to them.

You claimed they ruled on red flag laws when in their very decision they said they weren't.

Of course I wouldn't be ok with cops getting a warrant to look at me without any evidence but that isn't what red flag laws are. Cops don't go to judges and say, they want to sieze guns because some "got them realtor eyes" and the judge just gives.it to them.

You can't read, can you?

If I say, "Picking your nose in public is illegal," and call it the "Personal Hygiene Law," (picking noses is the primary part of the law) and the courts rule we have a constitutional right to pick in public, does there really need to be a specific statement from the court for me to say, "The Personal Hygiene Law has been ruled unconstitutional"?

Red Flag Laws were ruled unconstitutional, by directly ruling that the CONCEPT of red flagging someone who broke no laws violates the person's rights under the Constitution.

You love to argue, even when you know you're wrong.

As for Red Flagging someone based on no evidence OF A CRIME -- what is it you don't get?  Whether a Cop goes for the warrant (a provision that exists in the law states LE CAN make application for RF warrants among certain others), or if a parent, co-worker or healthcare professional applies, it doesn't matter.  The application will be made on the basis of a feeling unless there is evidence the subject has, is, or intends to commit a crime.

JDLR can give you suspicion, but suspicion alone is not enough for a warrant in all other situations.  You need a reasonable, articulable basis for that suspicion -- i.e. EVIDENCE.

You can't read, can you?

If I say, "Picking your nose in public is illegal," and call it the "Personal Hygiene Law," (picking noses is the primary part of the law) and the courts rule we have a constitutional right to pick in public, does there really need to be a specific statement from the court for me to say, "The Personal Hygiene Law has been ruled unconstitutional"?

Red Flag Laws were ruled unconstitutional, by directly ruling that the CONCEPT of red flagging someone who broke no laws violates the person's rights under the Constitution.

You love to argue, even when you know you're wrong.

As for Red Flagging someone based on no evidence OF A CRIME -- what is it you don't get?  Whether a Cop goes for the warrant (a provision that exists in the law states LE CAN make application for RF warrants among certain others), or if a parent, co-worker or healthcare professional applies, it doesn't matter.  The application will be made on the basis of a feeling unless there is evidence the subject has, is, or intends to commit a crime.

JDLR can give you suspicion, but suspicion alone is not enough for a warrant in all other situations.  You need a reasonable, articulable basis for that suspicion -- i.e. EVIDENCE.

You say I can't read yet you are clearly the one who didn't read the source you posted.

You made a demonstrably false statement and now you can't admit you were wrong when I pointed it out.

The case was not about a red flag law period. Admit you are wrong, be a man instead of doing gymnastics to find a way to convince yourself you are right.