There is a certain bureaucrat mentality which will cause bureaucrats to both act when they should not and fail to act when they should. It is such a mentality that caused the INS/ICE to start deportation proceedings against a woman whose husband was killed on 9/11, since she was in the country on her spouse's employment visa and her citizenship was still pending.
If there were some way of being sure that bureaucrats would never use their power arbitrarily and capriciously, then maybe it would make sense to entrust bureaucrats with power. But there isn't, so it doesn't.
The harm that would be done by bureaucrats given the power to arbitrarily deny people whom they think might commit crimes would make any harm that such people might otherwise have done seem trivial by comparison.
I think the article stated that in CT there were about 200 cases which is about 20 per year, each case was (supposedly) investigated, a warrant issued, then the case received further judicial review so it doesn't appear that these actions were arbitrary or random or done without oversight.
I personally know of someone who is ok while on his meds (paranoid schizophrenic) but gets very whacked out when not. Even mentioning his meds provokes paranoia. Thank God he doesn't have any guns that I know of as I do not know what he might to if he quit his meds and I may not be in a situation to intervene personally.
There are many others like him or in similar situations who may legally own fire arms but may have episodic behavioral malfunctions.
So far the *best* advice seems to be to wait for them to do something illegal THEN call the police and it isn't sitting well with me.