The problem with his suggestion
is that the GVROs proposed by the anti gun crowd don't fit the parameters he lays out:
1. It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly defined class of people (close relatives, those living with the respondent);
2. It should require petitioners to come forward with clear, convincing, admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others;
3. It should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against him;
4. In the event of an emergency, ex parte order (an order granted before the respondent can contest the claims), a full hearing should be scheduled quickly preferably within 72 hours; and
5. The order should lapse after a defined period of time unless petitioners can come forward with clear and convincing evidence that it should remain in place.
In Illinois, for example, it's been proposed that we expand our existing, very comprehensive system of restraining orders with laws that:
1. Allow law enforcement and the courts to file on behalf of another, even against their wishes.
2. Allow evidence as flimsy as the recent acquisition of firearms or ammunition.
3. No allowance is granted to contest as no notice is given of the proceedings.
4. Hearings are not guaranteed within anything resembling a reasonable amount of time.
5. Orders do not lapse automatically. Restoration of rights must be sought by the respondent even when there is no actual threat.
Again, these are proposed additions to our already robust law on restraining orders. Other states have similar. It's what comes when laws are written only from an anti gun perspective.
In the article, the author states that the FBI admitted its error - that it was given the kind of information that would lead to a GVRO. Rather that giving the FBI a pass on that, I'd prefer they enforce the law they could have enforce instead of creating new law that might, or might not be enforced.