One of the things being discussed around the tables at this years NRAAM are "Extreme Risk Protection Orders" (or "Red Flag Laws", if you want to be less overt about it.)
These are laws which allow for guns to be seized by law enforcement based on what seem to be subjective opinions about whether someone might be dangerous or not.
Note, do, that the guns are seized without an actual crime being committed -- to say nothing of an actual criminal conviction.
Indiana's Red Flag Law is being touted as the model for the nation (side note: Indiana? What the hell, Hoosiers?), based solely upon alleged "due process" protections for gun owners.
These "due process" protections involve a two-step process. First, judge has to find that probable cause existed for the initial seizure of the guns, if done so without a warrant. A warrant would require review for probable cause before being issued.
Second, a hearing must be held within 14 days, where the subject can petition to get his seized guns back.
I put "due process" in quotation marks, because I have two questions that no-one seems to be able to answer.
The first is: How many initial Red Flag Law warrants are turned down by judges for a lack of Probable Cause? What percentage of warrant-less seizures of guns are immediately reversed by the reviewing judge upon initial review?
Second: How many -- or what percentage -- of Red Flag law seizures are overturned at the 14-day hearing?
I suspect that the reason I can't answers to those questions is because the answer to both is under the margin of error. And that is unacceptable.
Gentle Readers, if Indiana judges are rubber-stamping the seizures of lawfully-held guns no matter how piss-poor the probable cause for those seizures are, then "due process" is NOT being observed.
Indeed, due process by rubber stamp is nothing more than mockery of due process.