Wow. Do you have to committ a crime to get a restraining order taken out against you? I thought those things were pretty liberally granted. If so, I'm amazed that is all it takes to remove your weapons. Hopefully this will get challenged and beaten. Yes, that was what the Emerson case was about, remember. You know the one that Ashcroft said that the Supreme Court need not hear.
The 5th Circuit Court upheld the ruling in Emerson that said the Second Amendment protects an individual right. It then went on to apply the lowest level of judicial review called "rational basis" to that right. Normally "strict scrutiny" is applied to fundamental rights like the right to trial by jury, the right to worship as you please etc. In Emerson the court ruled that the state can violate your right without ever convicting you of anything or even charging you with anything.
The Bush/Ashcroft "Justice" Dept. argued that the circuit court was right and there was no basis for the SCOTUS to grant cert. This is how Ashcroft can say he believes in the Second Amendment protecting an individual right while gutting it and turning it into a privilege. It is political New-speak. You have to parse every word this administration utters or you are fooled into believing they said something you like when they said nothing of the kind.