Twocubdad

The banter between Clark & Lisa is a waste of time. They are obviously reading a script as their delivery is so stilted as to be a distraction. Did they just grab a couple folks out of the break room to do the audio? Content wise, the video unfortunately seems to fairly present Boards of Review as laid out in BSA policy. When you hear the entirety of the BOR procedure laid out this compactly, my reaction is to end the charade and do away with BORs completely. When you have to dig this hard to explain the purpose of BORs, maybe there is no purpose. Just one of the contradictions is that so much emphasis is given to BORs not being retest -- if the requirements are signed on in the handbook, that's it. But then we learn that even if a Scout doesn't have his handbook, the board should still proceed. Requiring the Scout to present his handbook to the Board is an "administrative roadblock" and we can't have that. If Boards of Review no longer really review the Scout, I suppose we should not be surprised that the motto excludes preparing for anything which may be considered "administrative." High-speed/low-drag advancement in policy in action.

I'm still not buying high standards equal punishment. Regardless...... Here's my disconnect: I understand the policy. I know that once a requirement is tested and signed off that is supposed to be it. We're not to question it; we're not to retest; we're not to go back. But why? What is the educational or programmatic philosophy which makes that a good approach? Are we saying that Scouts don't need to know first aid for a simple cut after completing Tenderfoot? What is the purpose of the requiring Scouts to learn various skills and information if there is no intent that they retain it? In fairness, I can see that as an acceptable approach for many of the elective/hobby/vocational merit badges. There purpose for many of them is simple exposure. Gave basketry a try, made two baskets, found it to be the most boring, useless hobby imaginable and will never touch it again. NEXT! Fair enough. Many of the skills Scouts learn are important life skill -- first aid and emergency prep; cooking and safe food handling; personal management even family life. Why is it so terrible to ask our Scouts to really commit these skills to their core knowledge base? Please don't tell me we don't retest because the book says don't retest. I want to know WHY the book says don't retest. 'Cause I sincerely don't get a philosophy which says work hard to learn all this stuff but you can forget it all as soon as your handbook is signed. Oh, by the way. I have cousin who is a senior at The University of the South (Sewanee). Much of this semester he is taking senior exit exams during which he is responsible for all the material in every course he has take while in school there. I'm wondering if that level of rigor is part of what makes Sewanee so prestigious?

How is a Scout penalized by his SM thinking he needs to memorize the Constitution? I guess where many of us differ philosophically with those on the "advancement team" is in thinking that knowing the Constitution would be a good thing. (Actually I said "Preamble" but it's hypothetical anyway). Your example of the "problem" of a Scout moving from one program to another is the same thinking which gave us the Department of Health and Human Services, the Energy Department and those nice folks at the IRS. Your "problem" assumes that only national/federal solutions will work. I'm willing to bet given a general framework of a program, local folks could come up with a solution for your Beach Boy. Such as the SM waives the local requirement for a 17.5-y.o. moving from another troop, or the Scout maintains dual registration with his old troop for six months and works cooperatively with the two troops, or the kid simply goes down the road and finds a troop which is a better fit, or completes his Eagle as a Lone Scout, or contacts his local Scout Service center for help, or, or, or. If you think outside the existing paradigm, the solutions are many. And I'm glad you mentioned the example of uniforming -- it's a point in my column. Have you been to summer camp lately? If your understanding of how troops wear the uniform is jamboree or NOAC, you're in for a surprise. While there is a Uniform & Insignia Guide, just like the Guide to Advancement, it starts with the caveat that there is no requirement Scouts wear a uniform at all. While I'm not suggesting an equivalent, optional approach to advancement, I do think the acknowledgement that units will apply the method to varying degrees is important. Oh, by the way, if you come to our summer camp, we're the "standard plus" troop which always wears the full uniform along with our troop hat and necker. Calico -- it all depends on your purpose. McDonald's has built their program on strict compliance with its standards. The conversation I' trying to start here is whether or not maintaining a strict national "franchise" is really as important to Scouting as it is to McDonald's? Apparently the Advancement Team thinks so. Why?(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

In the parent thread Benelon writes the advancement training materials are necessary because "Because too many adult leaders add too many additional requirements to the process because they have their own idea of how the process should work and the boy is caught in the middle. Especially when he moves between units or states." Why is that a problem? Sure there have always been requirement and the "neither add nor subtract" rule has been around as long as I remember. But why? If my CO is an American Legion unit and wants all their Scouts to be able to recite the Preamble to the Consititution? Why does National care? If we're chartered to a VFD or rescue squad and they want the Scouts to continously upgrade and maintain their first aid training, why isn't that a good thing? In our district we have troops which will only accept SPL as the POR for Eagle. Another has very strict attendance policy (and has well before last year's change). One has fixed age requirements Scouts have to reach before receiving various ranks and before attempting a Eagle project. One has a long list of American history and government and Scouting history questions they must pass for each rank. I suppose my greatest transgression is refusing blue cards for merit badge universities and a handful of required badges taught at summer camp. We can quibble over the specifics of each of these, but if these represent what is important to the CO and the leadership of the troop AND are clearly delineated up front for the Scouts, then why does BSA care? If troop A has a heavy aquatics emphasis and wants every scout to complete BSA lifeguard why is that bad? Shouldn't we be honoring the Scouts and units which do more and hold higher standards. I know the company line is "it's national's advancement program and we must follow it." Again I ask, why? Why isn't can't national take the view of "these are the minimum requirements, go for it." Don't like the requirements added by the above troops? There's another one which runs advancement like Cub Scouts and routinely cranks out 13-y.o. Eagles. I hear they're taking applications. There is very little in the current direction of BSA advancement policy with which I agree. The new Guide to Advancement has it's pluses and minuses, but includes a not-so-thinly veiled contempt for unit leaders, as reflected in Benelon's remarks, above. But I guess we're all just a bunch of sadistic bastards who have to be kept in check. Or maybe we simply see greater potential in our boys than the bureaucrats on the "Advancement Team."

Oh, yeah. What was the Big Deal OA thing which was hyped for months as the be-all, end-all highlight of the jamboree? Then, lo and behold, half-way through the jambo we find out there aren't enough time slots for all the participants to make it through. Every troop was short-changed a quarter or half (forget which) of its ticket and forced to decide which of its members couldn't attend. Or the hundreds and hundreds of Scout participants who were essentially blocked out of the main stage show with Mike Rowe because visitors and staff flooded in a took their spaces? Trust me. Communications in general and the Leaders' Guide in particular SUCKED in 2010. I think the main thing AP Hill had going for it was that much of the operation was by continuing resolution and so many of the folks just knew to do what they always did. Although I'm not attending this year, I'm still connected on the mailing lists from my old staff group. No one has much info at all.

"But even then, our troop policy was to ask Scout LEADERS to keep their phone useage out of sight ....." Sorry. Dashed out to an appointment without proofing.

"But even then, our troop policy was to ask Scout LEADERS to keep their phone useage out of sight ....." Sorry. Dashed out to an appointment without proofing.

Maybe the guys are posting to their own Facebook accounts (I'm generally don't "friend" Scouts) or some other site I'm unaware of. But they're not posting it to a troop FB page set up for that purpose or sending them to the troop historian. "Out of the blue" I have had parents call me asking me to check on their son because they were really cold the night before or had an ear ache and they wanted to come pick him up. I've also had summer camp MB counselors telling they were marking kids "absent" because they listened to music the entire class. And one occasion when I walked up on a fellow sending a highly inappropriate message to his girlfriend. Nonetheless, we moved from a ban last year to an "appropriate use" policy. We conducted training on what the expectations are for appropriate use, but I think what the boys heard was "just don't let the adults see you using them." Whenever I see a guy on his phone, he quickly shows me he's texting his PL (or some other reasonable use) or quickly shoves it in his pocket. I'm good with that. Calling adult use hypocritical is silly. PappyDaddy nailed that. But even then, our troop policy was to ask Scouts to keep their phone useage out of sight and hearing of the Scouts. If you needed to make or take a call, step a way from the activities. If you're constantly on the phone, maybe you just need to excuse yourself and head back to the office. As a practical matter, if the Scouts see you on your phone, it's hard to tell them no when the ask to make a call. Worst yet, a kid teetering on the edge of homesickness may be reminded how much he would like to call his folks. A couple years ago, when cell phone hot spots first came out, I had an ASM at summer camp spend four or five hours a day on his laptop sitting in the middle of camp. I repeatedly asked him to go to the SM room at the camp office (which had normal wifi service). Things started to get tense between us but he finally limited his computer time to when the boys were off at MB classes. At some point, trying to diffuse things by strikin a friendly conversation, I asked what sort of projects he was working on. "Oh, I'm balancing my father-in-law's checkbook" and boasted about setting up the software so he could remotly access his F-I-L's computer. So much for a friendly chat. I later figure out this guy wasn't taking vacation to to go camp, but "working from home" for the week. Adults do have responsibilities which, unfortunately these days, means they can't let go of the umbilical. But they still need to be respectful of everyone around them and be descrete about using electronics too.

At this point the fella is on his own to learn the material. If I'm reading the post correctly, he's missed three opportunities. You've done your part in that regard. He could take a community first aid course, read the material himeself or his dad could work with him to learn it. There is nothing wrong with that. As a den leader I do think you owe the Scout an opportunity to demonstrate his knowledge of the material and get it signed off. If the kid knows his stuff, he should be able to go through the requirements in an hour. Set a meeting with him. But make sure he understands that your time is valuable and if he isn't prepared and doesn't know the material, it's going to be tough for you to take much more individual time. If he doesn't finish the requirements in that first meeting, I'm not saying you're done with him, but the math changes. Further meetings will be strictly at your convenience. If it doesn't work out that he finishes the badge, well, learning the world doesn't revolve around you can be a tough lesson. Set the expectations hard up front -- expecially with the dad (who has no part in the sign offs.) Make clear your going to expect his son knows the material and that their lack of earlier participation has put themselves in a situation with a limited number of bites at the apple.

Perhaps we've been around too long, Barry, but I think I did the same thing you did which was to pick up this debate where it left off on another thread some months ago. I don't think you and I are alone in that. If I recall, that thread http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=365651&p=1 was based on an announcement in the March Advancement News this change was coming. I believe the language of that announcement was even more pointed that SMs have NO ability to ultimately decline to issue a blue card for any reason. It also went into some baloney BSA Newspeak explaination that "authorized" doesn't really mean authorized in the usual, English-language usage of the word. Beyond the discussion of the change itself, I have an issue with these various "teams" making what seem to be policy changes almost willy-nilly and issuing them monthly via their own little newsletters. How many folks even get copies of Adavancement News? Up until the past year or so my impression has been distribution was semi-restricted to folks working in the advancement area. Seems to me we have enough trouble getting to learn, understand and use the published policy. I can understand "emergency" changes to health and safety stuff and I think most unit leaders now know to consult the online version of G2SS for quarterly updates. But the online version G2SS is a compendium including all the final changes. I'm not required to read through a backlog of monthly Health & Safety Newsletters trying to pick out what's a policy change, what's a good idea and what's simply the musings/wishes of the newsletter authors. (Who is the guy from national Health & Safety who lurks here occasionally? An Attaboy to ya!) Of course I'm not lobbying for quarterly updates to the Guide to Advancement. I spent real money to buy several copies of the G2A when it came out. Let's use them.

Perhaps we've been around too long, Barry, but I think I did the same thing you did which was to pick up this debate where it left off on another thread some months ago. I don't think you and I are alone in that. If I recall, that thread http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=365651&p=1 was based on an announcement in the March Advancement News change was coming. I believe the language of that announcement was even more pointed that SMs have NO ability to ultimately decline to issue a blue card for any reason. Beyond the discussion of the change itself, I have an issue with these various "teams" making what seem to be policy changes almost willy-nilly and issuing them monthly via their own little newsletters. How many folks even get copies of Adavancement News? Up until the past year or so my impression was that the distribution list was semi-restricted to folks working in the advancement area. Seems to me we have enough trouble getting to learn, understand and use the published policy. I spent real money to buy several copies of the Guide to Advancement when it came out. Let's ues them.

The advancement method is not unlike Youth Leadership. There is youth led and there is youth lead off into a ditch. Our jobs as leaders is to train, coach and guide the boys into leading a successful program. A big part of allowing the boys to lead is allowing them to fail. Of course we adults are there to ensure the failures don't compromise health or safety. But we also need to guard against too many "controlled failures" piling up and creating a bad program. If your PLC failed to plan and execute a campout for three consecutive months, would you mumble "youth led" and let it go? Or at that point -- or some point -- would you step in, do some re-training and perhaps plan one campout along with the boys so they can see how its done? Advancement is the same. Our jobs as leaders is to train, coach and guide the boys through a successful program. That means 99% of the time the Scouts set their own advancement goals, work at their own pace and make their own decisions. Again, a big part of this is controlled failure. And again, our first priority is seeing that the Scout's decisions don't compromise health or safety like that scrawny 11-y.o. wanting to take Horsemanship or Shotgun Shooting. But we still need to guard against creating a bad program. A new Scout pulling blue cards for all 21 MBs with a plan to complete one a month and five the week of summer camp is a bad program. If our training, coaching and guidance fails to convince the Scout otherwise, we ultimately have an obligation to that Scout to deliver a better program than that. At the end of the day, if all the counseling and guiding and talking and cajoling and bribery and distractions don't work, we just say no. I did what bnelon suggested and re-read the Guide to Advancement. Fortunately -- and despite the blather from the "Advancement Team" the the contrary -- it still supports this: 7.0.0.2 Unit Leader Signs Application for Merit Badge ("Blue Card") Though a few merit badges may have certain restrictions; short of them, any registered Scout may work on any of them at any time, as long as he has the approval of his unit leader. (emphasis added) This is indicated by his or her signature on the Application for Merit Badge, No. 34124, commonly called the blue card. Although it is the Scoutmasters responsibility, for example, to see that a counselor is identified from those approved and made available, the Scout may have one in mind with whom he would like to work. He may also want to take advantage of opportunities at merit badge fairs or midways, or at rock-climbing gyms or whitewater rafting trips that provide merit badge instruction. This is acceptable, but the unit leader should still consider the recommendation and approve it if it is appropriate. Whatever the source, all merit badge counselors must be registered and approved. See Counselor Approvals and Limitations, 7.0.1.4, and Registration and Reregistration, 7.0.1.5. All this is more art than science. If you're worried about the technicalities of what the policy says more than helping a boy find the right path, you've missed the point. If I have to tell a boy "no I'm not signing the dang blue card" I've failed as a counselor and coach. Just like if I have to step in and pull the plug on a bad outing, I've failed in allowing the youth to lead. But that failure doesn't relieve my obligation to that young man to see that he suceeds long term and gets the most from the program. (This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

BD -- if you miss what you are shooting at as badly as you missed my point, you're wise not to carry a gun.

So the element of surprise is a big advantage. That's some cutting-edge investigative journalism there! Yeah, that was probably good TV -- good biased TV. Probably did a good job of getting the gun control folks riled up and the Second Amendment types p.o.'d. Pretty standard fare for media today. Anyone wanna bet how it would turn out if the NRA produced the video? They would probably find some statistic that most criminals are under the influence when they commit their crimes and make the shooter wear beer goggles. Or that their point is that EVERONE should be armed and give guns to the whole class -- come to think of it, that would be pretty entertaining. Oh, you don't think the NRA wouldn't spin it in their direction, do you? But all of that misses the point that very, very few murders are these sorts of scenarios. If this is what you're prepared for you should build an ark too. Most firearm deaths are suicides or crimes of passion in which the shooter and victim know each other. But but watching some drunk try to figure out the combination on a gun safe wouldn't make very good TV.

Don't vote. Have the COR sign-off on whatever the JAGs gave you. The rest of the committee can pound sand. Oh, except for the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Bylaws. He/she should have input. Don't have a subcommittee on bylaws? Oh darn! I am assuming the base essentially functions as your Chartered Organization, if not technically so. If my CO hands me a set of bylaws and says "here's how we want you to operate", my best response is "yes sir." I assume it works similarly in the military.

I wouldn't be surprised if you drive right past the US National Whitewater Center in Charlotte. Pretty cool man-made ww run, flat water canoeing, zip lines, climbing, mountain biking. I don't think they do camping (or if you're planning to camp along the way at all) but there are a couple Scout camps in the area which could accommodate you.

"His dad was Catholic, his mom was Jewish and his Scout Troop was sponsored by a Methodist church. Being a real "type A" , he naturally earned all of them in turn. " Interesting. At the cub level that seems more likely since most of the requirements require only basic understanding. My impression -- and it's just an impression, I've not really studied the requirements -- is that at the Boy Scout level the requirements include some commitment to the particular faith. Coming from a mixed home myself, I can understand the mom/dad thing. Earning the CO's award just because it's offered seems a little odd. And I've read about one other exeception for wearing two of the same knot. I can't remember the specific situation -- love you guys but I ain't spending the time to look it up -- but it seems like it had to do with the same knot being recycled onto a different award. I've got two brothers in the troop who both wear three religious emblem knots. Occasionally, during uniform inspections, I'll remind them about the devices. Hopefully, maybe, when they outgrow their shirts they'll make it right. I've taught them what's proper... I've done my job.

Rick -- you friend ought to call John Stossel with his story! Years ago, before the last round of updates to concealed carry laws, North Carolina was a mandatory open carry state. You always heard stories about folks being arrested for having a gun in their car which slid under the seat when they went around a curve. Interestingly, South Carolina was a mandatory concealed carry state. Depending on your direction, you had to put your gun into or take them out of the glove box. But that's all changed now. States' Rights at work, eh?(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

You're right, Beav, if you're talking about tracing guns which are stolen, disappear from record and then used sometimes years later in a crime. I'd be happy if the added liability made folks secure their guns from suicidal teenagers, curious toddlers and enraged spouses. And I'm willing to bet that when folks start taking better care to storing their guns, that if their house does get burglarized their guns will be less likely stolen. The supply of guns on the street will be impacted. I'm also supposing the added liability and/or insurance costs will cause some folks to just say the heck with it and get rid of some of the millions of guns sloshing around. My father-in-law has an old .38 I have stored for him. I don't need it, I don't want it, I don't have ammo for it. If my insurance premiums are going up on account of it, I'll drop it off with the sheriff. And honestly, after discussing all this for the last couple days, I'm probably going to do just that anyway. Since I'm not running for office, I have no need for grand, sweeping changes which get my picture in the paper with Joe Biden. I'm cool with a more incremental approach.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Afternoon, Calico. I just got back from Lowe's. Bought a pack of screws and tile cleaner. The check-out girl asked for my phone number, which declined to provide. I don't care to aide Lowe's marketing department building a database of my purchasing habits. That doesn't make me paranoid or crazy, just private. What is the purpose of registration or licensure? Wave a magic wand and suddenly have a list of every gun and it's owner in the country. How does that make us safer unless there is ultimately a means of using that data to tax, control or deny ownership? Basically, this is the old, "if you don't have anything to hide..." argument. I don't have anything to hide, rather something to protect -- my civil rights. I'm actually not much of a gun guy, so this really isn't the emotional issue for me it is for others. I am, however, a big fan of small constitutional government and individuals maintaining their personal liberties AND responsibilities.

General Statutes 14-315.1 Storage of firearms to protect minors (a) Any person who resides in the same premises as a minor, owns or possesses a firearm, and stores or leaves the firearm (i) in a condition that the firearm can be discharged and (ii) in a manner that the person knew or should have known that an unsupervised minor would be able to gain access to the firearm, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor if a minor gains access to the firearm without the lawful permission of the minor's parents or a person having charge of the minor and the minor: (1) Possesses it in violation of G.S. 14‑269.2(b); (2) Exhibits it in a public place in a careless, angry, or threatening manner; (3) Causes personal injury or death with it not in self defense; or (4) Uses it in the commission of a crime. (b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a person from carrying a firearm on his or her body, or placed in such close proximity that it can be used as easily and quickly as if carried on the body. © This section shall not apply if the minor obtained the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry by any person. (d) "Minor" as used in this section means a person under 18 years of age who is not emancipated This strikes me as a pretty reasonable standard. It's been on the books long enough I assume it's passed constitutional muster. Trigger locks, you're covered. Gun locked up even if a thief breaks the lock, still okay. Gun in your physical control or under your supervision, check. Sitting on top of the TV while you're at work, no. Dashboard of the truck, no. I would change "minor" to "unauthorized person." If you maintain your firearms irresponsibly and that causes me harm, your should be held liable for that harm. You guys really don't thing gun owners don't have a responsibility to take very reasonable steps to prevent their guns from falling into the wrong hands? That really surprises me.

Vol -- nah. That may have been true at one time, but technology has solved that. Gander Mountain advertises biometrically-opening gunsafes for under $100 all the time. RID technology exists such that your gun "recognizes" you and is inoperable for others. If you're really serious about this, then when you come home you open you gunsafe and pu the guns out where you think you need them -- when you leave, lock them up. But if your neighborhood so unsafe you think it prudent to keep a loaded gun at the ready on your night stand where is is accessible to children or burglars, then you get to weigh -- and bear -- that risk against the liability of failing to secure your weapons. Are we not constantly teaching our Scouts that with freedom comes responsibility? If you've not been following my posts on this (and I've lost track of which tread is which), I believe mass shootings, as horrible as they are, are anomalies, an average of 21 deaths per year over the past 10. On the other hand, 18,000+ are blowing their own brains out with guns every year. And how many gun crimes are committed with guns easily stolen from careless but otherwise legal owners? If your guns are stolen from the seat of your truck or a glass case in your den, you don't get whine, "oooh, I'm the victim here. Go catch the bad guy." YOU are the bad guy and should be held responsible for your carelessness. You want to watch while Diane Feinstein's gun control bill passes? You want to have to get in line while Joe Biden writes down your name and the serial number of your guns? You want to take a chance on how many states will vote to repeal the Second Amendment? Then sit and do nothing. Keep letting the morons at the NRA represent you. Keep up the line of reasoning that doing what EVERY SINGLE RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER ALREADY DOES abridges your rights.

You just like goading me into trying to debate Constitutional law because you know you're better at it than I am. But fools rush in so the short answer is there is no Constitutional right to bear explosives. More practically, if a gun goes off accidentally, maybe through some freak accident a neighbor gets shot, but I don't take out the while neighborhood. I don't get to operate a commercial propane station in my garage or bury plutonium in the backyard either. But more on point, I'm not saying no to everything. In fact, I generally agree with the line of thought that we make folks responsible for their careless handling of firearms. But that process doesn't need to start by lining up the lemming. Think libel law, not motor vehicle. We're free to say or write what we wish, including me calling you are a good-for-nothing, flat-tailed rodent. If you believe my rantings damage your reputation, you sue. Taking this analogy a step further, my mortgage company and TwoCubMom know what a loudmouth I am so they require that my homeowner's insurance include general liability coverage which includes libel. And if more than just a loudmouth, I'm a loudmouth who happens to publish a large newspaper, my insurance company is probably going to nail me for a hefty premium and perhaps even require things of me contractually which may be unconstitutional if required by the guvmint. Private individuals doing what is in their own best interest which happily aligns with the public good. And the only action needed by the government was a small tweak of the civil code to include a libel statute. Take all that and just shift it down one amendment.

We chewed this pretty well before. While the high-speed/low-drag folks are in charge of advancement at national not everyone agrees that is the best approach.

"We're able to work da insurance angle pretty well with cars, eh? That involves quite a bit more registration and tracking than currently available with firearms." And that's my problem with this approach. I don't think we should use DMV as a model for ANYTHING! Look at the slippery slope we're free-falling down with health insurance, eh? I have a problem with anything which requires wholesale government registration. The paranoid will claim it is a prelude to confiscation, but more likely is a prelude to taxation. (Somehow I seem to be getting a Jesse Jackson vibe here -- my apologies.) We are still talking about a constitutional right. I should be able to exercise that right free of prior restraint by the government. Frankly, it's no one's dang business how many guns I own, no more than what I write, how I practice my religion or with whom I choose to associate. That's PRIOR restraint, mind you. That's doesn't mean there aren' back-side consequences if my exercise of those rights crosses the line of legality or irresponsibility. If my political meeting turns into a riot and destroys the neighbors property, I'm liable. If my religious practice results in someone's death, I may be prosecuted. Beav, I did read your response to my question about liability. I muddied my example by making the shooter a minor. But my real question was why isn't the failure to secure a gun is a separate act and actionable. It should be. No, suing Adam Lamza's mother's estate won't solve anything now. But as I've posted before, if I know the old pistol in my desk drawer has the potential of costing me my house one day, I'm going to think twice about leaving it in the drawer. If this requires a little tweaking of the civil statutes, that's minimally invasive. For folks who are serious about gun ownership his shouldn't be more than what they are already doing. But if it locks up the millions of guns lying about the homes of casual or careless owners, it saves lives. Slightly different topic related to gun registration, consider one unintended consequence "Ripped From Today's Headlines" as they say: the story of the Westchester Co., NY, newspaper which chose to publish a map showing the addresses of all gun owners. Gun permits are apparently public records in NY. Problem is, that includes the names and address of law enforcement officers. Not good. Of course it also provides a pretty good shopping list for folks looking to steal guns. DMV couldn't have done it any better.