In a criminal case the courts have to find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
In a civil case it is the preponderance of evidence which is a lower standard.

In the case of police taking firearms away from a person for mental health reasons, I see no reason the standard would be that of the criminal level.
I would have to find it again but there was a supreme court case that specifically addressed the level of proof necessary to take away someone's freedom due to mental health issues and it was lower than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It might have been clear and convincing evidence but again, I would have to find the case again to be certain.

And that's your problem.  There are courts and laws set up to evaluate mental health cases when the patient/individual is demonstrating potentially violent tendencies.

But, to confiscate property (guns) without a warrant AND without due process BEFORE the confiscation violates the Constitution.

Your comments might be more reasonable if the "accused' were provided due process before his guns were taken.  You use the phrase "due to mental health issues."  That catch-all phrase does not imply "unfit to own guns."  The rate of violence among the diagnosed mentally ill is about the same as it is among the rest of the population.  So, taking guns under the pretense of keeping us safe from the "mentally ill" is unrealistic.

You and I have been down this road too many times.  If a PERSON is a threat to public safety, then LOCK THE PERSON UP.  If they are not, then let them have their guns.  Disarming someone you think is dangerous and letting them roam freely is quite stupid.

And that's your problem.  There are courts and laws set up to evaluate mental health cases when the patient/individual is demonstrating potentially violent tendencies.

But, to confiscate property (guns) without a warrant AND without due process BEFORE the confiscation violates the Constitution.

Your comments might be more reasonable if the "accused' were provided due process before his guns were taken.  You use the phrase "due to mental health issues."  That catch-all phrase does not imply "unfit to own guns."  The rate of violence among the diagnosed mentally ill is about the same as it is among the rest of the population.  So, taking guns under the pretense of keeping us safe from the "mentally ill" is unrealistic.

You and I have been down this road too many times.  If a PERSON is a threat to public safety, then LOCK THE PERSON UP.  If they are not, then let them have their guns.  Disarming someone you think is dangerous and letting them roam freely is quite stupid.

I fully agree that a search warrant would be necessary for officers to go into someone's home and take the firearms but I am still not sure your assertion that a subpoena ordering the recovery of firearms would be unconstitutional. Of course the the judge must have grounds to make such an order, he can't arbitrarily just order the surrender of firearms.

We have agreed before that if someone is too dangerous mentally to have firearms then they are too dangerous to be out in public. What I am focusing on here is whether firearms could be ordered to be turned over with a court order (assuming there is some cause). That and trying to establish what constitutes sufficient cause to order the surrender of the firearm since there is reason to believe that the levels of cause are not necessarily the same as in a criminal case.

I fully agree that a search warrant would be necessary for officers to go into someone's home and take the firearms but I am still not sure your assertion that a subpoena ordering the recovery of firearms would be unconstitutional. Of course the the judge must have grounds to make such an order, he can't arbitrarily just order the surrender of firearms.

We have agreed before that if someone is too dangerous mentally to have firearms then they are too dangerous to be out in public. What I am focusing on here is whether firearms could be ordered to be turned over with a court order (assuming there is some cause). That and trying to establish what constitutes sufficient cause to order the surrender of the firearm since there is reason to believe that the levels of cause are not necessarily the same as in a criminal case.

The real issue is the mentally ill people that eventually turn a firearm on someone is they dont go from 0 to 60 to reach that point. They are a known problem that have had multiple encounters with LEOs and officers arent allowed under current the law to do much about them (case in point the sh*tbag who killed 2 officers in Diamondhead). Almost every mass shooters was on some law enforcement  radar, more often than not even as high up as the  the FBI.

We had a nutjob lady on our block that had HPD at her house 1-2X a day FOR MORE THAN 5 YEARS and many dozens of court appearances until finally she eventually finally did something over the line that they could put a psych hold on her.  The officers hands were tied the whole time, a lot of those years the cops responding barely went thru the motions because 'nothing could be done', even laughing about it while we as her neighbors had to put up with the aftermath the minute they left. Allowing LEOs to make an on the spot call that removing guns somehow diffuses a potential problem is not any kind of solution,  being able to remand someone and get them a mental health eval, and potentially lock them up in a mental health facility is. Change the law and public policy to deal with nutjobs so Officers arent left having to fly by the seat of their pants and make civil rights law calls. Not a big problem to leave the guns in the house if you can lock up the mentally ill. We used to actually do that way back when.