There have been a handful of situations where the cops just showed up at the guys door to confiscate guns. Because due process was not followed, the guy felt his rights are being violated and a gun fight broke out. Imagine the anger and frustration. "Sir a complaint has been made, and we're here to take your guns". Even if at the door, he addresses the complaint, the cops there are "under orders" to take his guns.
So the "right way" of implementing this type of law is to let the receiving party have their due process (day in court) to address any allegations. And if after that the allegations are warranted, then and only then shall the person have to surrender firearms.
This type of lack of due process puts everyone at risk. Not only the person, the PD responding, and neighbors if a gun fight does break out. Bullets keep going until they hit something to stop them. This is why many Sheriff's across the nation will and do not support this.
The due process aspect is exactly where the "conditionally" part of this lies for me. Done the wrong way it can be abusive to our rights.
The one problem of holding a hearing first and then confiscating the guns is that this could take too long. Remember that guy in Waikiki who had a lot of guns and looked like he was set to go on a Las Vegas style shooting spree? Now imagine a system where the court hearing happens first. Police get a report of this guy with his guns, they show up, find him to be mentally "off", and give him a penal summons to show up to court 2 days later. Maybe the guy calls in sick, maybe the officer or witness calls in sick and it gets postponed to the following week. This amount of time, along with knowing that authorities are aware of issues with him, might be all he needs to go on his killing spree before the courts can work.
Unfortunately sometimes time is of the essence and we all know the courts are not exactly known for quick action.
My personal position is that there must be a way for cops to take firearms immediately when there is good cause. The part where I support it conditionally is that the due process must be quick and have a higher level of proof. So when someone's guns are taken away the hearing should be within 72 hours (to allow for weekends) and the level of proof needed to take someone's firearms away for a longer period of time should be the preponderance of the evidence, not probably cause or reasonable suspicion. Also, you can't make the person re-wait for 2 more weeks for new permits to get their own guns bag, that is just ridiculous.