With all due respect to Mr. Adams, I don’t 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 can’t be a nebulous, vague term like “crazy” or “insane” that can deprive someone of their right to bear arms without due process first. That’s 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 can’t 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 doesn’t 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 you’re right of course the media always likes to try to twist Trump’s words to suit many agendas so perhaps there is a way to see his recent comments in a favorable light. If I have time I’ll watch the video you provide. If not, I’ll 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, it’s pretty hard to see how comments like “take guns first, then have due process” or “you can’t 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.