The guns and ammunition have been temporarily removed from the man under the state’s new “risk protection” law, which is also sometimes called “red flag” legislation, Lighthouse Point City Attorney Michael Cirullo confirmed.
...
The man was involuntarily committed for treatment in a separate proceeding and it is not yet known when he would be eligible for release, records show....
So apparently, the man was "Baker Acted", as you said, however his involuntary commitment (via the Baker Act) was not the cause of the confiscation of his guns. That was done in a separate hearing, a separate proceeding, under the new law. So apparently, the two (the Baker Act and this new law) act independently of each other.
Now reading the source article it's pretty clear it was probably a good idea to take guns away from this obviously sick individual. But that could have been done with just the Baker Act in this case, there was no need to have this extra law to do it. The new law only makes it easier for someone to "certify" to a judge that you need your guns taken away. I'm not saying it's "easy" to do it, but it's "easier" now, there's a difference and it's called a slippery slope.
I am certain that most journalists do not know how to read statutes. The whole seizure of firearms provision in statute rests on a person being taken in for “involuntary examination” which is what the “Baker Act” provides for. The proceedings are separate because first cause must be shown to a judge that the person is subject to “involuntary examination” before an ex parte order for firearm seizure can be issued. I think you’d want it that way.
Also note the statute only allows the police to seize the guns and ammunition the person possesses at the time they are being taken in for “involuntary examination.” But there is an important restriction, “and has made a credible threat of violence against another person.” The statute then reads how the police may petition a court to have other guns and ammo which were not in the person’s possession at the time they were taken into custody confiscated. I am not sure but it reads as though “person possesses” applies only to guns owned by that person and not necessarily all guns in the household. To remove those the police would have to get an risk protection order.
Just a quick correction to my other reply. The separate proceeding in this instance would be the “Risk order of protection.” Though the Baker Act is separate proceeding, the order to seize guns not seized when the man was Baker Acted would be done based on the petition for a order of protection.