No, you refuse to admit that had the law, as currently written was applied, this may not have occurred. They had just cause to ensure he had NO access to firearms. That's pretty simply their error. Because a few, if any, of those who made the decision not to pursue it may have been victims (even if true), is no excuse for inaction when appropriate. The law is there ... they failed to follow it.
I think your point-of-view is clear from the article, assuming that involuntary institutionalization under the Baker Act does subsequently disqualify someone from purchasing a firearm.
It would be nice to see some publication from the opposing side of the gun-control scene that serves as a rebuttal. Obviously committing someone to a mental institution against their will is a big deal, and it's possible that invoking the Baker Act was inappropriate here for reasons that I can't be bothered searching for - the devil in often in the details.
Yet he wouldn't have had a gun if they'd acted appropriately.