Exactly. Any law that messes around with a constitutional right (whether barely on the "Court says it's OK" side, or pushing the boundary) will be used to infringe further. Any time we have a "need" to play at that edge, the law's terms must be extremely well defined, as it will be abused and tight definitions are the only boundary to abuse - and the bounds will still be tested. If a simple statute with defined terms is being cited with a straight face by an experienced political actor in an effort to suppress political opponents (simply out of ignorance or in knowing abuse in the hope that a term defined elsewhere in the section reduces it to be read at will), then it's a superbly well-timed example showing how the proposed red flag law is going to be abused for similar purposes -
inevitably and probably almost immediately. Thus, my saying Design's "Wielding arbitrary speech codes against your opponents does nothing to absolve red flag laws of their status as
bad policy," is spot on and that it not only doesn't absolve the bad policy of red flag laws, it is a shining example of the kind of abuse we can
expect.
Even supposedly tight statutes that infringe on on constitutional protections are going to be abused. The more vague, more likely the faster. The very reason those constitutional protections on our rights are in place is the historically proven proclivity of humans to transgress upon those rights.