I'll preface this by saying I have zero trust in Feinstein and want her out of office immediately, and with her behind the bill, I have zero faith in the quality of it. However, this is a step in the right direction as far as this stuff goes, in my opinion. It isn't cast as certain guns being demons, and it requires family members to petition a court for what I think is a temporary hold on firearm possession. It's certainly a situation with the potential for abuse, particularly in California where an anti-2a family could very likely bring an individual in front of an anti-2a judge, who both think owning a bunch of guns and ammo is a bad sign in and of itself. I think with the right combination of factors (e.g. recommendation from 3+ family members => psych eval => court), it's something that might not be terrible. I think if someone posed that significant a threat however, the focus might better not be on guns at all but placing a temp psych hold
Well, to be safe, we should add driving a car, owning a knife, bat, large dog... Keep in mind, the average MSNBC viewer is shocked that someone might own say 10 guns and a few thousand rounds. Very dangerous path to go down. I am all about keeping guns away from crazy people, but am very leary of restricting rights because of something someone 'might' do. A lot of liberals think owning a gun, and defending yourself is crazy.