The only red flag here is that the law is focused on the gun not the person.
i.e. it IS focused on the person.
But for it to work, it needs tons of safeguards to prevent it being used as a form of “swatting”. And it can’t be enforced, “long term” without more than just a judge thinking a guy might, possibly, maybe do something bad. There needs to be some sort of definable threshold.
One good one would be two or more witnesses testifying that you have made actionable threats, on or off line.
It falls into the concept of “an armed society is a polite society”, by adding the corrolary, “if you own a gun, and you threaten someone on or off line, expect that gun to be taken away from you for a time.”
If it were focused on the person it would’ve been the person being taken away, not the gun.
So they are so dangerous you want their gun. Once that’s gone they are safe now?
It was only the gun making them dangerous?
When someone threatens someone they way you describe they can be arrested. They don’t disarm them and leave.
“One good one would be two or more witnesses testifying that you have made actionable threats, on or off line.”
Either a crime has been committed or it hasn’t. Anything else is ‘pre-crime’.