Not that corrupt bureaucrats and politicians wont try to exploit it, but I still think that if the law is written to use (not counter) constitutional provisions that protect people’s rights, then I am open to the idea.
A warrant should be sought, from a judge, in order to seek involuntary testing and examination (and detainment), just like if someone is a criminal suspect.
However, unlike criminal warrants, this law should be written to protect privacy. Warrants, screening results, and even any initial application of suspicion should not be a matter of public record, unless released by the individual. This is to protect the reputation those who receive suspicion but who do not qualify for assistance and intervention as well as to dissuade people from using this system as a weapon against their enemies.
Also, to avoid individual bureaucrats from rigging results, they should only be given the power to recommend further evaluation or intervention, and any intervening detainment should be very short, although potentially necessary for public safety. The process should be speedy, but the final evaluation should be by a commitee or a panel, and should probably work something like a FISA court, although I understand we now know those get abused too.
Finally, there should be a process written into the law allowing people to file a complaint and have the process reviewed by an independent court if they believe they have been unfairly targeted.
I would rather spend that effort to be able to get dangerously mentally ill people institutionalized.
If a person truly is a danger with a firearm, they are also a danger with a knife, rock, hammer, infinite number of potentially deadly weapons.
We have to keep in mind the person is the danger. Impossible to take everything away from them if you don’t commit them.
Sorry I think I misread your post. I thought you meant all of that before removing someone’s firearms.