I think the prophylactic benefit outweighs the inconvenience.

Due to the sheer extent to which this is currently open for abuse (e.g. see prior link), I entirely disagree.

This is a problem common to ERPOs and is part of why they’re so strongly resisted - tranpling a person’s rights requires extreme diligence and emphasis on restoration of those rights. Putting the burden on the individual whose rights have been wrongfully infringed upon to regain their rights through procedural bullshit is a complete inversion of burden of proof, is a vector for harassment and abuse itself, and approaches enabling bans by incremental erosion of rights.

If there was conclusive data to indicate such measures would impact domestic violence - not just that by firearm - you would at least be able to try and justify making such a change. As it stands, we have only myriad correlations with minimal control for other factors and even then, there’s not much to be shown for domestic violence, categorical improvement - just a shift in implement.

With that justification in place, you’re still obligated to cover the road to restoration of rights in order to ensure anyone wrongfully impacted is made whole with no burden on their part.

If you want to argue for some Trumpian “take the firearms first” nonsense, don’t be surprised when such measures are so strongly criticized and pushed back upon.

Due process is there when the order is originally given and there is a method of redress.

Except it really isn’t, hence the entire issue.