So why can't we just say, force the gun owner with protective orders against them to give up their guns for 6 months, a year, two years tops depending on their history? Do we really choose the strictest possible interpretation of the second amendment over "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for people who are quite possibly the survivors of violent, toxic relationships?
Why is this a radically anti-gun idea? It sounds like common sense - take guns away from people who have a history of violence while they are in an emotionally distraught part of their lives. Given how frequently the shooters in these stories seem to proceed to kill themselves, it seems like it's for their own safety just as much as for the victims'.“Once a person has an injunction issued against him, he is already a prohibited person. He cannot, under the Fifth Amendment, be forced to disclose whether he is in possession of firearms, because that would be tantamount to forcing him to admit a crime.”
What? I really don't understand this one, and it sounds incredibly defensive on the part of the gun-rights advocate speaking. Why is being forced to disclose your firearm possession tantamount to admitting to a crime (unless even the advocates are suggesting that gun ownership has a negative, criminal connotation)?