Red flag laws.
On top of the most extreme Duty to Let the Bad Guy Kill You law in the country that the Democratic VP nominee saw enter the books, he's also been a vocal supporter of his states Red Flag laws.
To be fair, Red Flag laws aren't just popular among radical leftists and aggressive morons like Cenk Uyger. David French is the only person who I can think of that made an argument for them that wasn't completely contradictory. If you're fairly pro-2A and have a trust for the cops, it can seem like a "common sense" compromise to have guns taken away from a person who is thought to be a threat to himself or others.
Nonetheless, problems abound, especially in the radical wing of the Democratic party. Not the least of which is the issue that mock the pro-2A people for arguing that the best solution to an active shooter is an armed citizen. You are aware that, by definition, the strategy behind Red Flag laws is to add more guns to the situation, right? Every time you get a cop involved, there's a gun added to the situation.
I've been in debates about these discussions. Of course, I've asked for success stories. Of course, some of these "success" stories involve cops shooting people dead in their own doorways. These people are acting surprised that police might get a call, "Hey, we have a report that this guy might be dangerous. Go get his guns." and that the cops might be on edge when they knock on his door. We saw what the cops did to Sonya Massie over a pot of boiling water. How do you expect an average cop to act when he knows that there's a gun involved?
What's more, a lot of these cases started because a family member or a friend called the police specifically because they thought that the person might harm him or herself -- specifically not saying that he or she was a threat to others. So, these "success stories" trend to be that the police shoot a person dead because they were told that the person might shoot him or herself.
Was Wako a success story?
Even if they could produce a handful of success stories, the problem remains that these people have committed no crimes. That these people aren't even suspected to be planning a crime. Still, it's an excuse to create an interaction with police in which they're coming to take something from you that you have a right to have.
It's also a case where the burden of proof gets flipped. In order to get your property back, you have to go to court and prove that you're all good. Again, it's not even that you're guilty until proven innocent because you haven't been accused of a crime. You basically need to prove that another person's opinion of you was wrong.
This is not something that we should tolerate.