I'd vote for this. If a person has been accused of domestic violence or is having any sort of violence related mental issues, that person shouldn't be able to buy a gun.
People thinking about Red Flag Laws owe it to themselves to at least take a look at Red Flag laws in Florida, which have received favorable treatment in recent national discussion.
Twice a week from her courtroom, Florida 13th Circuit Court Judge Denise Pomponio decides who in Hillsborough County can no longer be trusted with a gun.
www.cnn.com
(Note, Trumpers: That was from CNN). Here's another link that describes things in the Florida law:
https://sites.law.duke.edu/secondthoughts/2019/09/27/florida-appeals-court-upholds-red-flag-law-against-constitutional-challenge/#:~:text=In%20Davis%20v.%20Gilchrist%20County%20Sheriff’s%20Office%2C%20Florida’s,laws%20generally%20and%20the%20first%20on%20Florida’s%20law.
The term "Red Flag Law" is not really a single category of statute with universally-accepted provisions across all states. In other words, its nothing like the Uniform Commercial Code that a lot of you businessperson-posters already rely on in your transactions across state lines. So smart people should be careful in making comparisons of similar Red Flag laws in different states. They are not uniform at all.
I'm not 100% certain what Florida is doing that is different from other states, but as near as I can tell, Florida's Red Flag Law is unusual in that (1) it not only requires prompt court hearings when somebody reports that somebody else with guns is making threats, but (2) it actually
funds the extra court time/expense for a real judge to have a prompt court hearing to consider whether someone's guns should be taken away.
So, that appears to be a major improvement over just passing a Red Flag Law without appropriating enough money to actually make it work.