National Review is one of the few remaining outlets for conservatism that isn't batshit crazy (generally, at least), but I'm nonetheless encouraged by this showing up there. The author has since responded to a libertarian critique, and I think does so effectively.
Gun violence restraining orders to me make an incredible amount of sense, and are much harder to argue against than some of the more ineffective measures (such as an assault weapons ban). Plus, they do more than such bans to address suicide, which represents the majority of gun deaths.
Three states (California, Oregon, and Washington) have them, and the Giffords Law Center (a pro-gun-control group) has a breakdown of how they work. Unfortunately they're too new (the oldest was only passed in 2014) for us to have a lot of data on their effectiveness, but I still think they're something we should be experimenting with a lot more.