This idea has actually already been implemented in different forms. In Virginia, which traditionally has been a pro-gun state, anytime the court enters a protective order (restraining order) that involves domestic violence, the party against whom the order is entered is proscribed from possessing guns. The judge will instruct a in owner that all guns must be removed from their possession and stored elsewhere for the life of the order. I cannot speak authoritatively about all states, but I know this arrangement exists in other states as well.

I agree that a GVRO makes sense and fairly balances individual rights with community safety. It can also be a way to alert law enforcement about a potential situation. Those who violate the order can be imprisoned and guns can be confiscated. I would add that if an order is entered, the restrained party should be require to undergo a psychological evaluation to assess the immediate risk and must pass a psych eval before the order can be lifted. I think to make this approach work, GVRO clearance would have to be added to any background check to purchase a gun which shouldn't be hard.

On the downside, in Florida the FBI was warned about last week's shooter and did nothing. Further a restraining order is just a piece of paper. It doesn't physically prevent someone who is determined to do evil. But that's the tradeoff we have to accept to live in a free society. If we imprisoned everyone who might be a risk, we would be living in a system that invited abuse and repression. There are risks in any arrangement.