Italics are mine.
So imagine, if you would, that you're a person whose only motive is to prevent violence from occurring. You have no interest one way or another about guns. Let's say you knew a person was a danger to himself or others and he had a gun. Would you
A) Immediately take this person who is a danger to himself or others to a mental ward so he can be treated for whatever is wrong with him?
B) Take his guns, but leave him free so he can buy a new gun from Ice Dog and Ray Ray down on Dot Ave in Southie and then go murder whoever set him up with the restraining order?
Seriously, which would you choose?
Stop making the Due Process argument. No one cares about that but us, and we're already convinced. Insist that your representatives add a line to these laws in committee. Add words to the effect that if a judge finds a person to be dangerous to himself or others that he be taken directly to the mental ward for a 72 hour evaluation. If he's safe enough to release, he doesn't lose his guns. If he's too dangerous to release, then he gets committed. Anyone who wants to prevent violence by unstable, dangerous people wouldn't leave unstable, dangerous people on the street where they can still cause mayhem.
So instead of taking someones guns first and letting them go through legal hell to get them back, why not just lock them up for 72 hours and see if losing their job on some vindictive ex's say so sits better with them than having their property taken and effectively held for ransom.
If a law can be abused, it will be sooner or later. Keep thinking about this. No one wants crazy people to have guns. Knives work nearly as well and aren't regulated yet. Figure out some easy quick way to evaluate someones sanity that can at least suggest whether or not a more in-depth evaluation is needed. It shouldn't take 72 hours and should include an evaluation of the accuser as well.
Remember Wednesday Addams when asked about her Halloween costume: "I'm a psychopathic mass murderer. We look just like everybody else."