The threshold of proof for imprisoning somebody for several months is - and should be - considerably higher than the threshold of proof for limiting somebody's access to lethal weaponry for several months. The latter is rarely more than a minor inconvenience. The former is devastating, especially if done incorrectly.

There's ample research out there showing the effects of these regulations. This is a solid example that runs through multiple different permutations and combinations of restrictions:
https://www.preventdvgunviolence.org/dv-and-firearms-zeoli.pdf

The exact numbers vary, but the common thread throughout every study examined in that summary is that reducing the accused's access to firearms reduces the risk of their partner being murdered by around 10% (by any means, not just by firearms), with the figure being quite a bit higher in some specific cases. That's a big deal.