I bet he is a repub.

the gun industry and it's gunner supporters struck a 'compromise' that limits the law's ability to remove firearms from mentally distressed people to ONLY those who have been INVOLUNTARILY committed to an institution.

I have always held (with very few exceptions) that there is a spectrum to everything. I'm a big fan of the 5A and considering those basic rights, a well represented court proceeding would be required to remove someone's property. However, having that standard at the level of involuntary commitment seems excessive. I fully agree that those who aren't completely in touch with the world in the present with an unclouded grasp of people and surroundings ought to be subject to a competency review. Expert examination and testimony would be review and available to challenged and judged not just a report from a neighbor, doctor or scoutmaster.

An involuntary commitment is for sure a good reason to have firearms removed. There is, IMO, levels of dysfunction short of that which would classify firearm access as presenting a undue danger to themselves or others.

re: "What about their rights?" What I've presented above is reasonable. The rights of each individual end where other individuals' rights begin.

If the psych felt that he should have been committed, that should be enough for at least a temporary confiscation (relative secure them, etc.). It's not just the NRA, it's confidentiality laws and the interaction of all this between all parties to ensure everybody's rights are ensured. Unfortunately, it's not a perfect world, and things overlap into other areas.