The problem with the Lautenberg Abomination with regard to restraining orders is that it totally ignores what they're supposed to be about.
A restraining order does not, and should not, typically require any particular level of proof of criminal conduct (or even allegation of criminal conduct) because it should not interfere with any particular rights of the recipient.
Actually, in the right context, a restraining order can provide very useful protection for a woman who fears her estranged lover: it puts both the woman and the man on notice that if the woman shoots the man in her house she'll have an easy time claiming self-defense, and that if the man wants to stay alive he'll stay out of the house.
Of course, with the Lautenberg Abomination in force, the woman in the above situation may be faced with a reciprocal restraining order and thus disarmed. Thus, the man knows that he can safely attack the woman without reprisal.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
If turnips were watches, I would wear one by my side.
And if "ifs" and "ands" were pots and pans, there'd be no work for tinkers.
As it stands now in California, without this amendment, there is no particular right that the amendment interferes with, because according to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the highest authority in California short of the US Supreme Court, "...the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own or possess firearms..." (Silveira v. Lockyer, 2002)
Passing this amendment, causing a restraining order lacking a basis in proven violent conduct to interfere with a particular fundamental and inalienable right of the recipient under State law as well as Federal, but on different terms, will throw a wrench into the works and force a careful reexamination of the manner in which restraining orders operate.