I'm not sure about warrantless searches as a part of the Red Flag Laws. Maybe, I missed something but there was no mention of warrantless searches. The point about those Red Flags is due process and with judicial review. Firearms are removed for the safety of the person and others. It's not an anti-gun conspiracy. Don't blame Red Flag laws when a SWAT team makes a serious error. Period
Actually, I would beg to disagree. To some degree having a special unique process for firearms is anti-gun. The firearm is not the danger here but the individual. Then if the state is focusing on the possible criminal actions of the individual, the rights of the accused in a criminal sense should apply. If they are focusing on mental illness, every state has existing civil commitment laws that allow the state to involuntarily commit someone for observation by professionals whether they are dangerous to themselves or others. Every state has similar EPO's and domestic violence statutes etc already for stalkers, wife-beaters, etc. where a judge after a suitable hearing can grant motions for the defendant to divest themselves of firearms.
Why then have a jackleg third process that is neither fish nor fowl? The answer is that anti-gun advocates want something like the loosey goosey civil forfeiture laws to apply to firearms specifically so the state can seize them. I do believe that for some of the more blood thirsty types, the carnage among police and the individuals during the seizures are viewed as a feature. Want more support, make the procedures in red flag laws follow the same due process required for criminal charges or civil commitment with the state bearing the burden of proving it to a high degree (at least clear and convincing std) and having to reimburse the individual for damages, you will have less problems with the system being abused. Otherwise, imagine that your First Amendment free speech rights are next targeted with a midnight raid to seize your phones, computers, etc. because of your anti-social activities. After all, we cannot have individuals saying what they like as much of it is hate speech or sedition and causes people their lives or at least hurt feelings.
Believing in the Constitution, you recognize that a certain number of people that you do not know and may never know will suffer or even die as a consequence of having those rights in society. There is a reason that Thomas Hobbes preferred the rule of a tyrant that denies all rights to the people to preserve order over anarchy.
The rights of the accused have allowed murderers to go free and commit more. The rights of religion have allowed cults to hurt their followers, the rights of free speech have allowed folks to destroy the reputation of others and cause civic unrest leading to death and injuries. The rights of the mentally ill not to be confined has allowed some to commit heinous crimes while other to harm themselves or their families. The liberty to drive a car leads some to do so negligently or even evilly to bad effects on society. Ditto for drinking.
There is no free lunch--rights have costs which is why they also have unspoken obligations by those protecting them. Even with the costs, I prefer liberty in a society despite some deaths due to it to a society where the greatest fear is the government's knock on your door to take you away--in the twentieth century--by a far margin in the death toll--the greatest number of casualties outside of war came from a government doing that to their own citizens.
BTW, there was specifically an issue with a red flag law in Maryland and a person being killed as a result.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-aa-shooting-20181105-story.html#nt=instory-link
Recognize that this will be the cost of a red flag law and that some people will end up dying rather than submitting. Doing things like a drug raid at 5:17 am in the morning without prior notification of a hearing is the sort of thing that will cause both police and civilian casualties. People are a lot more likely to submit voluntarily when they feel that they have been heard rather spring stuff on them as a surprise. If he was accused of a crime and arrested, he would been given more due process than this.
In a later story, the police chief for the department argued that the incident proved why such laws were needed. "Anne Arundel Police Chief Timothy Altomare said the shooting
was a sign that the law is needed, while state gun rights advocates called for the law to be suspended and repealed after Willis’ death."
https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/bs-md-red-flag-law-requests-20181114-story.html
Such a caring guy-resisting what the person felt was unjustified taking indicates that he was the type that should not have a gun. This is the sort of petty tyranny that can arise from such laws. Apparently the dispute that caused it was a family argument. Here is the quote from other family members, "Anne Arundel Update: Family members tell me there was a fight last night that centered around the care of an elderly family member that led them to contact police. Gary Willis struggles with alcoholism. Family say he wasn’t dangerous just strongly opinionated."
https://www.prisonplanet.com/maryla...-his-home-for-resisting-gun-confiscation.html