With all due respect to Mr. Adams, I dont believe his point is valid here. Due process, as the phrase is commonly used, refers to our constitutional right to a jury trial before any punishment or punitive action (such as the seizure of a weapon), barring immediate danger of course.
The point is it cant be a nebulous, vague term like crazy or insane that can deprive someone of their right to bear arms without due process first. Thats constitutional not a legal matter per se. Mr Adams is conflating law with constitutional rights in other words; if it were as easy a solution as he proposes, then why cant a leftist President/Congress say, If a new law says the police can arrest someone for being discriminatory in their hiring practices FIRST, and then have a trial to determine if they really are a bigot, then that becomes due process.
No it doesnt because such a law would be unconstitutional because it would violate the first and fourth amendments. The same applies to Mr. Adams formulation. It violates the fourth, and thus would be an unconstitutional law by definition, not due process but the exact opposite of due process.
With that said youre right of course the media always likes to try to twist Trumps words to suit many agendas so perhaps there is a way to see his recent comments in a favorable light. If I have time Ill watch the video you provide. If not, Ill take the wise approach you and others suggest which is to watch and wait to see if this is a pattern for Trump or some isolated media spin.
But as I see it now, its pretty hard to see how comments like take guns first, then have due process or you cant be petrified of the NRA (as if the conservatives in Congress should not be beholden to the NRA on matters of gun control) could be mollified by a study of the context in which they were presented. They pretty much stand on their own.
See post 75.