Thought I was pretty moderate in my first response, post #5... Watched as things progressed and for sure - this is a hot button issue, no doubt...
Clearly our world has changed since I was a kid (sixties - dodged the draft in 1968 by enlisting....) when there simply was no such thing as an "active shooter"... Today, sad to say, I don't need to remind anyone that we have all too many incidents where, after the fact it was pretty clear that someone should have acted before the blood was on the ground. Nothing you can do about a premeditated action that gave not one hint of trouble beforehand (the Vegas shooter comes to mind) except to pray for a strong, quick response by folks who know how to neutralize a shooter.... and put him or her down as early as possible...
As for those individuals that gave quite a bit of information about their instability and/or intentions beforehand (the Parkland shooting -the church shooting up in the Carolinas), this is clearly an issue that needs to be acted on. Hardly any of our existing laws and law enforcement concepts deal with this. Traditionally no action was taken until a law had been broken - but in today's world we really do need to change our tactics (and the legal framework behind it all..). I'm saying this even though I'm all too aware that our mental health services are barely adequate for ordinary circumstances - and most professionals in the field will tell you that they're not reliably able to predict human behavior... We can give an ailing individual a new heart, we can send a man to the moon - but mental health issues are still behind the times (understatement).
I have been the young officer dealing with troubled folks and on the scene of more murder/suicides than I ever wanted to witness (once or twice I was on the scene when the last to die - was still flopping around after a head shot that wasn't terminal... quickly enough....). In later years I assisted my officers in taking folks into custody (and seizing their weapons) after family members - many times at their wits end, begged us to help... Yes there are already laws on the books that allow this - long before "red flag" laws were contemplated... I've counselled young officers that had someone badly needing mental health treatment - that couldn't find an agency or a bed anywhere - that wasn't already full to over-flowing... That sort of circumstance will discourage a young well meaning cop - learning that there's a lot of difference between what we say we provide - and what's actually there on the ground - not matter how desperate the need.
Yes, well meaning legislation can be mis-used - and most dealing with conflicts between family members or neighbors soon learn that folks will lie - to no end if they're wanting to injure someone else....Learning to distinguish between truth and falsehood takes years (many that I worked with never developed those skills, putting up a cynical front to mask their frustration...). That particular skill is highly valued by folks who work the street - since often, the only justice seen will be when a lying complainant isn't allowed to injure a family member or a neighbor...
I have to side with those who say we (everyone that appreciates the second amendment) need to get out in front of this kind of issue. Laws will be written about this topic - and they need to be reasonable - and also need to require a judicial review within no more than a week to have the facts aired and allow a judge to see whether a pre-emptive action was, in fact, justified. There also needs to be a requirement that the state pay for the attorney of the person that the action was taken against - if it's found to be without merit...
I could go farther but I'll allow others to speak up about this. Make no mistake, if armed citizens want to keep their current privileges we need to be part of the solution on this topic - at least in my opinion....