In a world of active-shooter drills for 6-year-olds, of going to the mall (or to school, or the movies or ...) with a twinge of fear, of declaring that "somebody ought to do something," why would anyone want a deadly weapon in the hands of people whose troubling behavior might lead them to hurt themselves or others?

Even many staunch defenders of the Second Amendment agree that firearms and the potentially mentally ill should not mix.

That's why we applaud Florida's First District Court of Appeal, which on Sept. 25 rejected a constitutional challenge to the state's "red flag" law, which was enacted after the 2018 mass shooting at Parkland's Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

Red-flag laws, also called extreme risk laws, let law enforcement officers act on reports of someone displaying warning-sign behavior and take away their guns with an extreme risk protection order. The laws can stop mass shootings, homicides and suicides from occurring, and they have. They save lives.

And no, adrenaline-pumped cops don't kick the door down, barge in and confiscate weapons from troubled people. Rather, they first petition the court to temporarily remove guns from dangerous situations. And that scenario is what prompted the challenge to the law.

The Gilchrist County Sheriff's Office believed that one of its deputies, Jefferson Eugene Davis, posed a threat after he suspected that his girlfriend was cheating on him. The sheriff's office filed a "risk protection owner" seeking the removal of Davis' firearms.

A circuit judge approved the request, but Davis appealed, challenging the constitutionality of the red-flag law, saying that he had a right to fully argue his case in court. But the court unanimously upheld the spirit of the state's red-flag law.

The court was right to affirm: People who are extremely emotionally disturbed, even for a brief time, should not be allowed possess guns. And law enforcement has the right to intervene.

FROM AN EDITORIAL IN THE MIAMI HERALD