https://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/the-trouble-with-red-flag-laws/
He's talking about the laws allowing seizing of guns from someone "dangerous"--and pointing out how the laws won't always have the envisioned effect. Yet another example of what on the surface looks like a good idea but which is poorly done and can easily backfire.
This begs the question, what would you do?
Quoting your reference,
When pieces o’ feces like the one at Parkland wreak mass murders, we in the gun owners’ civil rights movement are the first to say, “We need psycho control, not gun control.”
And having read every red flag law enacted or proposed he has found none which adequately protect the non-psycho gun owners.
Are the members of the gun owners civil rights movement proposing that we establish a new standard for laws and regulations that they have to accomplish their intended reason for existing in every case with no untended consequences and innocents caught or that they shouldn't be implemented?
This comes close to the same rationale people used, for example, to attack the ACA, "There are still people without health insurance, the law is a failure, we should get rid of it" or to attack the war on poverty, "The program is a failure because there are still poor people, eliminate it." That is a standard of "if it isn't perfect, don't do it," applied to a law that they oppose for other reasons.
