A show of overwhelming force is reqired to dicourage resistance. This is actually designed to minimize casualties as is showing up at 4am.
Unfortunately, it can also lead to suicide by cop and injuries to law enforcement personnel/others. The idea that there is one right way to do something is always problematic and the idea of routinizing red flag type situations and always using a SWAT or similar team will result in a higher civilian casualty count. And the point is that people who are mentally ill are and should treated differently under the law that a drug dealer resisting arrest.
No one asks to be mentally ill and a lot of police encounters in repeated circumstances have simply applied the same rules to these encounters that they would with a cartel gunman or terrorist. The result is tragedy and diminished respect for the police.
But my point is that these type laws are coming up for consideration in 2019 and beyond whether you like them or not, maybe not the federal level at this time, but certainly at the state level. Every state that has an initiative process is at risk from billionaires pouring money into their state to force such things.
Therefore, we should have the gun community, especially the legal beagles, start to come up with statutory language that protects our rights and property. This is especially true as judges are quite used to ex parte hearings on such things as search warrants and arrest warrants without any countervailing arguments. These proposed red flag orders resemble that process which ill serves protected rights.
The idea behind the search process is that any errors in fact and law can be rectified later during a suppression hearing. The problem comes up when a person is not tried criminally, suffers damages due to an illegitimate search, and then cannot gain recompense because of qualified and absolute immunity. This is what we are facing with red flag type laws.
For that reason, we need to build in higher evidentiary standards than probable cause into any such law (in jurisdictions that I am aware of, clear and convincing is the usual standard for involuntary commitment for mental treatment), allow recompense for harm caused from malicious actors, apply strict standards for seized weapons storage, chain of custody, and inventory including pictures, no permanent defacing inventory marks, etc., mandate a full court hearing within a short period of time 24-72 hours after such seizures to reverse these with counsel provided (as mental issues are involved, counsel should be provided to indigents just like civil commitment situations), and strictly limit who can report. Any false reports by individuals should be punished with a large civil fine with the money to go to LEO slush funds aka asset forfeiture and possibly jail time if the person anticipated the red flagged individual being harmed by police (just like penalties for Swatting). I am sure that folks can think of additional provisions than these.
The point is, rather than the firearms community being viewed by the general public as demanding gun rights for demented nutjobs, by offering thoughtful provisions to any such laws that protect our interests, then even if the law goes forward (as in quite a few states), we can drill holes in the law so that it is used as a last resort rather than a common police response. This is the correct response to the common perception that people just "snapped" where in truth, most situations involve people with a lengthy history of threatening violence, actually committing it, exhibiting mental illness, suicide attempts, etc. Yes, most of these could be dealt with by existing laws, but that is just like the three strikes law, laws named for various crime victims, etc., the red flag exercise gives the gun grabbers moral and public support to highlight gun owners as a menace and mentally ill.
If the gun grabbers realize that our amendments or proposed law will effectively circumvent their policy and propaganda desires, they will oppose it (see the reaction to Title IX reform for example) which will hurt passage chances. Thus, no law passes or one law passes in one house with different provisions in the second, and a conference cmte kills it. Thus the politicians get to be on record for supporting something, the gun grabbers get nothing, and the firearms community looks to be both responsible, willing to compromise, and supporting core values such as fairness in proceedings, due process for the unfortunate individuals, protecting the public safety, and so on.
I have been involved in politics at the local, state, and national levels--currently only at the local level. The idea that you can simply oppose something without sufficient voter support or any countervailing arguments and proposals means that you will fail. Individuals when dealing with the political process as individuals will fail unless they reflect the majority opinion.
Far too many libertarians and conservatives argue from principles and ideology, I am susceptible to that as well because I think logically and not with my emotions (unless looking at a firearm I want but do not need). Most of the public (about 80-85 percent) does not think that way--they reason from what they perceive will create a good outcome or bad outcome, not from predicting outcomes via ideology and logic. Thus, gun grabbers manipulate by positing the situation of a crazy person with gun (usually after the latest public shooting), then the general public wants police to take it before they hurt someone. The gungrabbers propose a new redundant law, aka red flag, that does that in a new shiny way. General public and legislators say swell. Let's solve that problem. That is an outcome preference based mostly on emotions with very little logic or consideration.
Now, our position, is "Hell no" people have constitutional rights which this is trampling on and any Tom, Dick, and Harry, with a grudge will call these in and people will get hurt. Notice, the 2A is abstract in concept and people will nod and say yes, there is a right to have firearms, but mass support starts dropping off when the situation is do you want felons to have firearms or mentally ill people. The risk that people with grudges or that the police will overreact are fighting against emotional conditioning that "most people are good and would never falsely report something--see the whole Kavanaugh hearing for an example" or "the police protect me from the crazies--if they have to take out some enforcing the "law" so be it." Gungrabbers activists (and other groups) rely on this psychological manipulation to get more power for them and government (which they intend to run) repeatedly via laws and regulations. It is in their DNA. They will not hesitate to lie, distort, slander, libel, accuse, doxx, and selectively edit your comments, to make any opponents of their plan as "bad people".
What they do not do is play the game of compromise very well. Most activists come off to lawmakers as tedious monomaniacs that have holy zeal in the righteousness of their cause. That very righteousness that gives them power gets dissipated in the legislative process if give and take is involved. If your cause involves "Good versus Evil", good can never compromise with evil and that is something a political operator can use to their advantages.
GeorgiaCarry has done this repeatedly in Georgia and has advanced the cause of firearm rights step by step, a few were legal cases, but mostly through developing personal relationships with legislators, even those on team Blue. Unlike the hired lobbyists at the state level from the NRA, GeorgiaCarry has sent constituents to their individual state legislators to talk legislation with them, and so forth. It is a example of how to effectively build a winning coalition which is necessary to win anything. Sometimes even minor changes work to our advantage as these minor victories can set the stage for more major ones later. If the opponents threaten blood in the streets due to a proposed law, and the legislature passes it. The lack of blood in the streets demoralizes the gungrabbing rank and file, emboldens the 2A advocates, and persuades the general public that there is nothing to be feared here. The moral is that slippery slopes can work both ways in our system. Make it work for us.