Yeah I don't know what to think about this...
1) What's the standard of proof to argue a case to have someone's property removed from them (guns or not).
2) How does this pass constitutional muster? Can I go before a judge and show that someone is saying inciteful things so they should lose their right to speech (I understand these things are not perfectly correlates, but run with me here).
3) There has to be a better way to execute the law than confronting an armed man in his home. That's going to cause problems.
This is what bugs me about it, someone can go argue that someone else should not have their constitutional right and then that's done? Quite the anti-2A Salem witch trial way of doing things. This is wrong and the cops should not have done this. Just another example of what the left thinks is a "sensible" gun law and as I've said before, is largely to blame for making the NRA the monster it is today. They think Trump writing an EO is treason, but someone telling a judge a citizen shouldn't have a constitutional right is sensible.