It's like with any other provision of the constitution, there are exceptions, the "community caretaker" standard is one such instance where the usual rules of constitutional law do not apply in the normal sense. It's a relatively new concept in Delaware first formally recognized by the Delaware Supreme Court in 2008 in the case of Williams v. State, 926 A.2d 210 (Del. 2008). Basically it says (1) where there is/are objective, specific and articulable facts from which an officer would suspect that a citizen is in apparent peril, distress, or need of assistance, the officer may intervene for the purpose of mitigating the peril; (2) if the citizen is in fact in need of aid, the officer may take appropriate action to render assistance or mitigate the peril; and (3) once, however, the officer is assured that the citizen is not in peril or is no longer in need of assistance or that the peril has been mitigated, the caretaking function has ended.
Basically, you get a bunch of anti lawyers and legislators who have a little knowledge of this standard and you can side step the constitution to temporarily confiscate an individual's guns. For me personally, I'm trying to sort out how they plan to reconcile prong two with prong three. In their mind, and I agree, they can use this standard to sidestep some due process considerations, however, the harm sought to be mitigated is necessarily the individual's use of his/her gun(s) to harm him/herself and/or others. So you get a nice neat check in box one which relies on objective evidence. In box two, however, it starts getting fuzzy since under the community caretaker and parens patriae doctrines, and after having the knowledge ascertained in step one, you can seize the gun(s). The gigantic problem comes in with step three, however. Yes, after you've taken the gun(s), the harm is mitigated, however, it's also at that point where intervention must stop, that intervention being the seizure of guns. Returning them, however, resparks the harm sought to be mitigated. So as you see, step two and three create a self perpetuating cycle.
Bottom line, the legislature SHOULD NOT vote this into law, but given what they've done over the past few years including the June tweak that extends the 4473 hold to 25 days, this will probably breeze through to and have to be litigated all the way up through the State Supreme Court to have a chance to go away.