Cho was not adjudicated to be a sufficient danger to justify denying his freedom? If so, he should have been locked up. If not, then he was a free person.
If judges are given the authority to disarm people without locking them up, you can bet that many of them will do so with even the tiniest sliver of vague justification. I see no good reason to give judges that option.
If the Second Amendment doesn't protect the right of all free persons, who does it really protect? One may reasonably quibble about which people should be 'free' or 'not free', but one shouldn't lose sight of what disarmament means.
Cho was adjudicated a danger to himself by a judge after the court ordered evaluation came back with the doc stating that was the case. That is sufficient for the fed disqualifier to kick in and that's good enough, because the focus and purpose of the fed law is to keep dangerous mental defectives from engaging in the legitimate firearms market. The Constitution doesn't have the authority to address your "shoulds". It does give Congress the authority to regulate the interstate firearms market.
"If judges are given the authority to disarm people without locking them up, you can bet that many of them will do so with even the tiniest sliver of vague justification."
No. From #42, "Mental illness is defined by noting evidence of faulty reasoning abilities, and emotional instabilities. Logical reasoning, the logic and right of self defense, and the use of effective defensive tools is not, and can never be evidence of mental illness. Illogical reasoning, the denial of the right of self defense, and failure to defend oneself can be evidence of mental illness." Only a licensed doc can provide evidence of mental illness for the purposes of this law, and the right of a judicial hearing and legal representation must be available for any legal finding to be made that alters the rights of any individual. That's per 14th Amendment's due process clause.
"If the Second Amendment doesn't protect the right of all free persons, who does it really protect?"
All free persons whose rights have not been effected by due process, after having comitted a felony, or after having provided clear and convincing evidence to both docs and a court that they are a danger to themselves, or others.
"One may reasonably quibble about which people should be 'free' or 'not free', but one shouldn't lose sight of what disarmament means."
The idea that dangerous people shouldn't be allowed sharp objects is ancient. That idea never included the wisdom that they should be locked up, or killed as a general rule.