To the best of my knowledge, SCOTUS has never heard a case on red flag laws. The case this dude refers to was about a 4th amendment unlawful seizure. So many are contending that this case would support striking them down. To the contrary, if you applied it in the context of "red flag" laws, it would appear to simply require a judicial order/warrant. Which is what all of these bogus laws utilize. I would NOT cite this case in a briefing against red flag laws before SCOTUS. Best case, it is inapplicable. Worst case it supports the constitutionality of red flag laws when a judge issues a warrant for seizure.

That case has facts entirely inapplicable to the context of a red flag law. Dude has cops called on him by his wife for asking her to shoot him. Cops took him to the hospital and then returned for his guns. Allegedly misinforming his wife in the process. Then they seized them without a warrant. Plainly, this is a warrantless search/seizure. It is not a red flag law. Even if the purpose was similar.

4th amendment case law requires that if more than one person lives at the house, and any one party present refuses to consent to a search, the police can only do so with a warrant. This is to prevent occupant shopping to obtain consent. In this case, he only consented to go to the hospital if they agreed not to take his shit. In essence, he did not consent to allowing them in there. And that should have ended the discussion.

First circuit held that this was an exigency; that is, a circumstance exempted from requiring a warrant. They called it a "community caretaking" exception. And they justified it by saying police often interact with the public in a "caretaking" and non criminal context. And since this was not the subject of a criminal investigation, a warrant was unnecessary. But that is bogus.

SCOTUS reversed the court because there is no such concept exempting government from needing a warrant to conduct a search and/or seizure.

Warrants are applied for, and granted, all the time where there is probable cause to believe a crime is in progress or about to occur. As such, this case simply does not support the contention that red flag laws are unconstitutional. Only in the sense that if done without a warrant, they would be. The last thing you'd want to do is cite this giving an easy home run to a cucked court hell bent on eviscerating the second amendment.