Replace "Nazi" with; NeoCon, Arch Conservative, Nationalist, ANTIFA, Occupy, Black Panther and the like and we see an opportunity for any power holders to disarm individuals or groups aligned politically against them or even merely not aligned in the first place.
One of the things that strikes me is that it isn't necessarily the nazi part of the equation that's the problem.
It's the threats.
A better comparison would be "replace 'Nazi' with 'NeoCon who advocates violence against minorities, the violent overthrow of our government, wants to start a 'race war' and has been linked to several murders...'"
You're responsible for what you say. That's the other part of the right, the part no one likes.
Threaten me in my presence and you will get my attention. Threaten me while you're holding a weapon and you will get my undivided attention. If I can resolve these situations with a piece of paper from a judge, and you give up your weapon until we meet in court, that's probably by far the best outcome.
If these clowns want to run off at the mouth, fine. But there are
bodies on the trail that got them here, and they won't shut up about laying more people down. So yes, it's appropriate to take their weapons until we can figure out who's who, what's what, and whether we have all the right people locked down.
Personally, I bet that without weapons, none of them will have anything to say.
P.S. I don't see anything "unconstitutional" about red flag laws. They are not without due process anymore than a no-knock warrant is without due process. Both involve a judge, and both have remedies for mistakes or abuse. If these red flag laws are "without process", then so are search warrants.
When I read "no due process", I know I'm reading something written by someone who doesn't know what due process is.