State of mind background checks are likely to divide into two different categories — the genuinely mentally unstable young adults known to family and friends as potentially violent, and men involved in marital breakdowns with vindictive spouses. So any legislation should be carefully crafted to keep the second group out of the purview.
With all or most of these recent mass shootings involving mentally unstable young men (over two or three decades now), it appears that many lived with one or both parents, and that said parents (as well as siblings) would surely have been aware that (a) the perpetrators were obsessed with violent fantasies, and (b) that they had access to a weapon, in particular, they would have known (b) in the day or two leading up to the event. And that is where a legal mechanism is needed for said parent(s) to bring in law enforcement and neutralize the situation.
I see there being a valid legal responsibility involved in that, and perhaps legal sanctions could alter behavior of these family members who are naturally going to be inclined to look the other way and hope for the best.
At the same time, I see a danger of any poorly designed legislation becoming another weapon in the already unbalanced situation confronting men in marital breakdown situations. Perhaps a clause in the legislation that prohibits a warrant in any marital context where legally valid threatening type orders have not preceded, in other words, onus of proof on accuser.
“I think he might resort to violence” is not a high enough standard, there needs to be some pattern of actual behavior to support any intervention.
I am a firm believer that anti depressents or drugs such as ritlin are tied directly to this behavior as well and needs to be looked into!!!