PDA

View Full Version : House Passes Bill to Keep Creditors From Taking Guns


7x57
07-28-2010, 6:35 PM
My wife heard this (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011999-503544.html) on the radio on the way home, and surprisingly it doesn't seem to have hit Calguns yet:


House Passes Bill to Keep Creditors From Taking Guns

If you file for bankruptcy, you run the risk of losing your money and your car to creditors.

But under a measure that just overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives, one thing they would not be able to take is your gun.

The House this afternoon passed a bill that would change the law to allow someone going through bankruptcy proceedings to retain their rifles, shotguns, and pistols so long as they are worth less than $3,000 combined. (CBS Radio Capitol Hill correspondent Bob Fuss reports that, under the law, if you keep just one firearm, there is no such limit on its value.)

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT, introduced a similar measure in the Senate yesterday. The bill passed the House 307 to 113.

The House measure was introduced by freshman Democratic Rep. John Boccieri of Ohio, who argues that "We must protect the rights guaranteed to us by our founding fathers, no matter what financial circumstances a citizen might face," according to The Plain Dealer.

The National Rifle Association, possibly the most powerful lobbying group in Washington, endorsed the measure, saying in part, "We think it is reasonable for folks who are in financial distress to have an effective means of defending themselves."

Many states already have carve-outs for firearms in bankruptcy proceedings.

New York Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy argued on the House floor that the measure is a mistake, the Plain Dealer reports, arguing that having guns in households that are going through bankruptcy could increase the risks of suicide and violence.


The best part is the lamentations of their women, such as Josh Sugarmann (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/house-to-vote-on-exemptin_b_659347.html):


House to Vote on Exempting Guns From Bankruptcy Claims

What does a family facing bankruptcy need more than anything?

According to Ohio Representative John Boccieri the answer is easy: guns!

Tomorrow the U.S. House is expected to take up Representative Boccieri's "The Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act of 2010," a bill that would guarantee that the guns of individuals facing bankruptcy would be exempt from the claims of creditors. Not surprisingly, the bill is supported by the National Rifle Association.

As Boccieri explained in a letter to his congressional colleagues seeking co-sponsors:


In these difficult times, it is vital that Congress maintain individuals' constitutional property rights. Some property rights are secure; clothing, pets, or crops can be deemed exempt from repossession. Other property rights, however, are ignored, most notably 2nd Amendment rights.

The Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act of 2010 will allow consumer bankruptcy debtors to exempt firearms from the claims of creditors. Specifically, the measure would permit firearms held primarily for the personal, family or household use of the debtor to be exempt from the claims of creditors under federal exemption law. In those states that allow a debtor to use federal exemption law, this provision would prevent a trustee from selling a debtor's firearms to satisfy the claims of creditors.

While Congress works to pull our nation out of this economic recession, many people across the nation continue to struggle with depleted savings and increasing financial restraint. Residents of areas hit particularly hard by the recent economic downturn must make hard choices to sustain their families, and are often forced to file bankruptcy. Many times this results in individuals seeing their assets reclaimed and sold to pay off their debt, with creditors paying little regard to their well-being.


Contrary to Representative Boccieri's NRA-endorsed image of armed heads of households being able to "sustain their families" through financial calamity with the comforting reassurance of a firearm, the presence of guns in households experiencing bankruptcy or other financial distress actually enhances the risk of suicide or murder-suicide. According to the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) -- the only federal data that details such information -- more than 12 percent of firearm-related murder-suicides and suicides were precipitated by financial problems. Media accounts of murder-suicides also often include descriptions of the financial struggles, including bankruptcy, that precede such desperate acts:

* In June 2010, a California couple died in a murder-suicide and their three-year-old son was shot multiple times. The couple's five-year-old son told authorities that his father tried to shoot him, and then shot his mother and brother. The family started missing house payments in early 2009 and had filed for bankruptcy in February 2010.

* In February 2010, a Florida couple died of gunshot wounds in a murder-suicide in what the St. Petersburg Times described as "the end of a long history of money troubles." They had filed for bankruptcy in December 2004, listing $251,140 in debts. The couple's two young daughters hid in the bathroom during the shooting.

* In June 2009, a Florida family of four, including a 12-year-old and a 10-year-old, were shot to death in a murder-suicide. The parents were deeply in debt and struggled for five years to get out, according to records filed in federal bankruptcy court. The couple had filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2004 and a trustee constructed a plan for them to repay their debts, but they failed to make the payments. The case was converted to Chapter 7 which would force the couple to liquidate their assets. A status hearing on the case was scheduled to occur two months after the murder-suicide.

Representative Boccieri says his bill is needed because "gun owners in America facing bankruptcy have no choice but to relinquish the protection secured for them by the U.S. Constitution." Yet, far from offering protection, firearms are by far the weapons most commonly used in murder-suicide. Studies confirm that firearms are used in approximately 90 percent of murder-suicides. At the same time, guns are rarely used to justifiably kill criminals. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports, in 2008 firearms were used only 204 times by private citizens to justifiably kill a criminal during the commission of a felony in the United States.

While Representative Boccieri's bill promises to protect the firearms of bankrupt gun owners, the question remains: Who will protect their families?


I hate to link to the HuffPo, but where else to find such whining? :D

Josh is too boring here to bother reading carefully, but since there are already apparently many similar state measures I bet there is enough data to prove that none of his "murder-suicide" hyperventilating is statistically a problem.

7x57

wildhawker
07-28-2010, 6:38 PM
The best part is the lamentations of their women, such as Josh Sugarman (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/house-to-vote-on-exemptin_b_659347.html):

7x57

Where's the I'm laughing until my eyes water emoticon? :chris:

Hopi
07-28-2010, 6:40 PM
Excellent post.

N6ATF
07-28-2010, 6:58 PM
LMAO JS...

V30tyaXv6EI

yellowfin
07-28-2010, 7:07 PM
I wonder why if guns present such an imminent threat for suicide for people, why isn't Sugarmann himself gone yet, given that so much frightens, shocks, and horrifies him lately and he's reportedly an FFL?

Shotgun Man
07-28-2010, 7:10 PM
Ammo should also be exempt.

There also seems to be a lot of Democrat involvement in this for those of you who equate Democrat with retard.

HondaMasterTech
07-28-2010, 7:26 PM
Ammo should also be exempt.

There also seems to be a lot of Democrat involvement in this for those of you who equate Democrat with retard.

It's a self defense mechanism to remain appealing to voters. There is going to be a noticable amount of Democrats showing support for gun rights even though they probably don't personally give a crap about the 2nd Amendment.

ZRX61
07-28-2010, 7:32 PM
Tools are also exempt )

bigstick61
07-28-2010, 7:37 PM
It's a self defense mechanism to remain appealing to voters. There is going to be a noticable amount of Democrats showing support for gun rights even though they probably don't personally give a crap about the 2nd Amendment.

Exactly. Right now it is political suicide for many of them to be anti-gun publicly. If the political winds ever shifted (or they perceived it, rightly or wrongly), they would go back to their old ways in an instant.

MrPlutonium
07-28-2010, 7:37 PM
$3000 limit seems a bit slim to me. What happens to all the tacticooled out ar's and people's prized Barrett's?

Homebrew2
07-28-2010, 7:47 PM
What guns? Who has guns ... except for Ka registered handguns ? ... am I missing something?

CCWFacts
07-28-2010, 7:50 PM
CBS Radio Capitol Hill correspondent Bob Fuss reports that, under the law, if you keep just one firearm, there is no such limit on its value.

I would say, "wow" or something like that, but that doesn't even come close...

The next great trick in wealth-preservation in BK is going to look like this...

http://www.christies.com/images/department_exceptional_prices/51/EP_51_02.jpg
An exceptionally fine 12 bore single-trigger self-opening sidelock ejector pigeon gun by J. Purdey & Sons, no. 27128

Price realized: £120,000
December 2006, London, King Street

If that "no limits on one gun" thing survives, there's going to be a big jump in price of very high-end guns.

ZRX61
07-28-2010, 8:08 PM
People who own Purdeys aren't exactly lining up to declare bankrupcy...

choprzrul
07-28-2010, 8:40 PM
People who own Purdeys aren't exactly lining up to declare bankrupcy...

Maybe not now, but it would be a good way to preserve wealth through a bankruptcy.

.

DPC
07-28-2010, 9:07 PM
They wouldn't get my guns anyway!!! AT ALL EVER!!!

CCWFacts
07-28-2010, 9:12 PM
People who own Purdeys aren't exactly lining up to declare bankrupcy...

Maybe not now, but it would be a good way to preserve wealth through a bankruptcy.

Exactly. Just like now some people try to convert all their assets into a Florida homestead, except that a $200,000 shotgun is probably easier, more portable, etc. Usually people have a good idea of where they are heading, long in advance of declaring bankruptcy. Someone who can see he's in a situation that's heading that way next year would liquidate as much as possible and buy a high-end shotgun before filing it.

Bankruptcy advisors specialize in all these tricks.

professorhard
07-28-2010, 9:17 PM
They wouldn't get my guns anyway!!! AT ALL EVER!!!

Seriously, if they can find em they can have em.











They wouldn't be able to find them

nick
07-28-2010, 9:34 PM
$3000 limit seems a bit slim to me. What happens to all the tacticooled out ar's and people's prized Barrett's?

Umm, don't overspend? :)

tombinghamthegreat
07-28-2010, 9:59 PM
$3000 limit seems a bit slim to me. What happens to all the tacticooled out ar's and people's prized Barrett's?

Most people only have 500-1000 dollars worth of firearms. Usually people who are going bankrupt dont go out and spend 10,000 dollars on a Barrett

GuyW
07-28-2010, 10:15 PM
I think CA has had a similar BK provision for a long time....keep a rifle and shotgun under $X total value.

.

7x57
07-28-2010, 10:27 PM
Tools are also exempt )

So that would mean if the Brady Campaign declares bankruptcy Paul Helmke can't be seized by the creditors..... :43:

7x57

dantodd
07-28-2010, 10:34 PM
So that would mean if the Brady Campaign declares bankruptcy Paul Helmke can't be seized by the creditors..... :43:

7x57

Plus his total value is less than $3000.

johnny_22
07-28-2010, 10:46 PM
Mike Honda voted "NAY". Now, why does a member of the Congressional Sportsman Alliance think a hunter should need to lose all his guns in BK?

I got to find out who is running against him in November!

ETA: It's Scott Kirkand: http://www.kirkland2010.com/

Sounds better than Honda!

andalusi
07-29-2010, 9:25 AM
It's a self defense mechanism to remain appealing to voters. There is going to be a noticable amount of Democrats showing support for gun rights even though they probably don't personally give a crap about the 2nd Amendment.

Shocking news for you: Republicans do the exact same thing. Just witness Meg Whitman on gun rights, for instance.

jl123
07-29-2010, 9:29 AM
I have no love for either party, but some of you have been jaded by living in this damn state. There are gun loving Dems.......not many in this state, but plenty elsewhere.

yellowfin
07-29-2010, 9:32 AM
Worse still is that they don't stand firm if Pelosi, Schumer, or Feinslime really lean on them, or dare do something REALLY big like repeal the barrel ban or "sporting purposes" junk. They're fair weather friends at best.

Maestro Pistolero
07-29-2010, 10:45 AM
I love how they trot out anecdotal stories about individual tragedies where firearms were involved, because they can't talk about the real numbers that show the 100s of 1000s of crimes prevented by firearms. The overall public safety benefit be damned, guns are just evil. "Now move along, nothing more to see here . . ."

Since the studies that show those numbers remain uncontroverted, I can only conclude that they are so entrenched in their beliefs and their positions that that simply cannot allow credible contrary information to enter their consciousness.

MrPlutonium
07-29-2010, 11:10 AM
Most people only have 500-1000 dollars worth of firearms. Usually people who are going bankrupt dont go out and spend 10,000 dollars on a Barrett

Correction: smart people without money don't spend $10000 on a barrett. AKA not me. Not going bankrupt but spending most of my earnings on firearms. It's good to be single...

Wherryj
07-29-2010, 11:43 AM
Where's the I'm laughing until my eyes water emoticon? :chris:

Yeah, it's people like 7X57 that make it impossible for me to drink coffee while reading these forums. I've ruined more good monitors that way.

Wherryj
07-29-2010, 11:46 AM
So that would mean if the Brady Campaign declares bankruptcy Paul Helmke can't be seized by the creditors..... :43:

7x57

Nothing but net.

PatriotnMore
07-29-2010, 11:52 AM
Let's see big business going down the toilet, people bail them out. People financially going down the toilet, business takes everything but guns.

Yes, I know there was abuse by those who filed BK, but there were many who did not. Banks and finance wins again, people lose.

ZenMasta
07-29-2010, 11:57 AM
I think $3,000 is a fair value.

I'm sure people in this situation will "give away" their decked out uppers to lower the value if it came down to it.

bwiese
07-29-2010, 12:06 PM
God DAMN I can see the nice NRA bootprints all over the Capitol's carpet :)

yellowfin
07-29-2010, 12:12 PM
God DAMN I can see the nice NRA bootprints all over the Capitol's carpet :)The boot prints need to be on the administration's crotch.

cvc04
07-29-2010, 12:26 PM
Jane Harman voted NO for those in the 36th district who might be interested.

HondaMasterTech
07-29-2010, 3:42 PM
Shocking news for you: Republicans do the exact same thing. Just witness Meg Whitman on gun rights, for instance.

No they don't! Republicans are perfect! :rolleyes:

dfletcher
07-29-2010, 3:46 PM
Just curious, if you have $100K of handguns and go bankrupt in CA, how does one dispose of them without running afoul of the "thou shalt not sell more than 5 handguns a year" law?

tombinghamthegreat
07-29-2010, 4:49 PM
Just curious, if you have $100K of handguns and go bankrupt in CA, how does one dispose of them without running afoul of the "thou shalt not sell more than 5 handguns a year" law?

The law says is 5 transactions per year

AJAX22
07-29-2010, 5:51 PM
You ate only prevented from selling them to individuals... You can liquidate to a dealer or put them on consignment.


I think the 3k celing is a bit low.... It depends on who does the appraisal of the guns...

This actually only protects people who aren't 'gun guys' since the whole unlimited value for one gun clause is voided if you want to keep your grandpas 22

only people who own no firearms could possibly use it as a wealth preservation measure.

7x57
07-29-2010, 7:46 PM
Where's the I'm laughing until my eyes water emoticon? :chris:

Us entertainers live for the applause of our audience. :D

7x57

mzimmers
07-29-2010, 8:15 PM
$3K, eh? I suppose that would cover my reloading equipment, anyway...

jerryg1776
07-29-2010, 8:32 PM
The old BK law if I remember crrectly allowed you to keep 1 firearm and that was a holdover from quite a long time ago so that you could hunt and feed yourt family and it made sense. I hate to play devils advocate here but I think that if you BK, then all of your possessions should be considered liquid and be sold off etc.. not all except 3K worth of firearms or 1 very expensive one without limit. Remember BK is allowing you to NOT PAY YOUR DEBTS what doe sthat have to do with your 2A rights - nothing. At least the old regulation had some m eanign.. this is just more BS smokescreen.

I also do think that the presence of firearms in those situations does escalate the possibility of violence and/or suicide. Say what you will... some people will take that way out and take others with them- its a sad fact of life. Is it really fair to allow a person to go BK and keep his guns while another person goes BK and has to sell off family jewelery? They are both just material objects that should be liquidated to pay your debts. Aslo BL laws for many states allowed the keeping of firearms as exemptions. So tell me what does this really do....

This was a useless law passed by useless people that really does NOTHING. They need to actually pass laws and look at the tax code and spending side before any of this crap is even looked at. Once again... a feel good do nothing law. Does not matter which side you are on... it means nothing except its a talking point to keep the focus off what really matters.

End of RANT...

Aegis
07-29-2010, 8:32 PM
Ammo should also be exempt.

There also seems to be a lot of Democrat involvement in this for those of you who equate Democrat with retard.

99% of Democrat politicians still wish to destroy the 2A. The Democrats know the November election will result in major losses for their party, so a few Democrats are pretending to support the 2A to pander for votes. If you look at every gun control bill ever passed, I bet 99% of them were sponsored by and mostly supported by Democrats. There are a few Republicans who are not much better. Part of the Democrat's party platform is to eliminate the 2A and anyone who thinks otherwise has not been paying attention the past 50 years.

tombinghamthegreat
07-29-2010, 8:38 PM
I think the 3k celing is a bit low.... It depends on who does the appraisal of the guns...

Wouldn't it be difficult for creditors to know what firearms you own? Most states there are limited record of firearms (not to mention C&R guns are cash and carry). Then the records that are kept on firearms are private? So how would a creditor know if you have a 5,000 gun you received from a family member?

Anothercoilgun
07-29-2010, 9:01 PM
The addition of $3,000 just said it all. Treasonous to put a price tag on the matter.

rjf
07-29-2010, 9:12 PM
The credit card companies have records of your transactions. Most people pay by CC. Of course the transaction is only a snapshot in time, but they know your spending habits.

Lulfas
07-29-2010, 10:21 PM
I don't get it. Why should you be allowed to keep your guns as compared to any other property? Tools (referenced above as something that is also exempt) I guess I can see, if you earn your living with them. If you screwed up enough to have to declare bankruptcy (I've never done it, but my parents did. Thanks Chapter 8 board in Tennessee), why would you get that exemption? If anything, it seems like "Well, I'm going bankrupt, time to go buy some guns on credit" just like people do with houses in Florida.

pitchbaby
07-29-2010, 10:52 PM
$3000 limit seems a bit slim to me. What happens to all the tacticooled out ar's and people's prized Barrett's?

If they come for your AR... STRIP YOUR LOWER! LOL!!!

Maestro Pistolero
07-30-2010, 12:09 AM
I don't get it. Why should you be allowed to keep your guns as compared to any other property?It is a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
You don't lose your 1st, 3rd,4th, and 5th amendment rights because you are broke, and you don't lose your 2nd amendment rights because you are broke, either. Do you get it now?

dantodd
07-30-2010, 10:01 AM
It is a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
You don't lose your 1st, 3rd,4th, and 5th amendment rights because you are broke, and you don't lose your 2nd amendment rights because you are broke, either. Do you get it now?

I think one of the things that bothers the poster to whom you responded, and frankly bothers me too, is the jocular tone that many people here take in discussing ways to avoid paying legal obligations. The suggestions of hiding money in single, large dollar, guns is disgusting. I'm sure that most folks are joking about it is still wrong.

You don't have a right to keep a $100,000 shotgun when you are claiming that you can't afford to pay your creditors. If someone wants to talk about keeping their 700, shotgun and a 1911 I'm all for that. They are tools that both keep one safe and can help put food on the table.

mblat
07-30-2010, 10:04 AM
The only thing that wrong with the bill is the number $3000. Such bills should be tied to something like "average monthly wage" or whatever....
I would guess that in 30 years pretty much every one of my guns will worth more than $3K.

mzimmers
07-30-2010, 10:05 AM
I think one of the things that bothers the poster to whom you responded, and frankly bothers me too, is the jocular tone that many people here take in discussing ways to avoid paying legal obligations. The suggestions of hiding money in single, large dollar, guns is disgusting. I'm sure that most folks are joking about it is still wrong.

You don't have a right to keep a $100,000 shotgun when you are claiming that you can't afford to pay your creditors. If someone wants to talk about keeping their 700, shotgun and a 1911 I'm all for that. They are tools that both keep one safe and can help put food on the table.

Yeah, that's well put. I don't like to see people game the system, even if they choose to do it in style. I'm also not thrilled with the idea of people distorting the purpose of 2A to facilitate their deadbeat tendencies. The founding fathers wouldn't have been pleased with that.

dantodd
07-30-2010, 10:25 AM
99% of Democrat politicians still wish to destroy the 2A. The Democrats know the November election will result in major losses for their party, so a few Democrats are pretending to support the 2A to pander for votes. If you look at every gun control bill ever passed, I bet 99% of them were sponsored by and mostly supported by Democrats. There are a few Republicans who are not much better. Part of the Democrat's party platform is to eliminate the 2A and anyone who thinks otherwise has not been paying attention the past 50 years.

Cite please. If you are going to make a claim about 99% of anyone it should be pretty easy to back it up.

Lulfas
07-30-2010, 1:49 PM
It is a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
You don't lose your 1st, 3rd,4th, and 5th amendment rights because you are broke, and you don't lose your 2nd amendment rights because you are broke, either. Do you get it now?

You're not losing the right to own a gun. You're losing the gun.

Gray Peterson
07-30-2010, 2:58 PM
So they have the authority to take your bible or other holy book to satisfy your debts?

mblat
07-30-2010, 3:01 PM
So they have the authority to take your bible or other holy book to satisfy your debts?

If you happend to own one of the Gutenberg Bibles - you will surely lose it. Holy or not.

Gray Peterson
07-30-2010, 3:07 PM
Yeah, that's well put. I don't like to see people game the system, even if they choose to do it in style. I'm also not thrilled with the idea of people distorting the purpose of 2A to facilitate their deadbeat tendencies. The founding fathers wouldn't have been pleased with that.

There are the founding fathers of the country who signed the Declaration of Independence, and there's the creators of the constitution who created it in 1787. Congress has the very specific power to deal with bankruptcy law. If they can't seize bibles, they can't seize guns.

Gray Peterson
07-30-2010, 3:08 PM
If you happend to own one of the Gutenberg Bibles - you will surely lose it. Holy or not.

Talking about a regular KJE bible.

mblat
07-30-2010, 3:18 PM
Talking about a regular KJE bible.

And I was talking about the reality. While I have never been even close to bankruptcy I know couple people who went through it. While it is obviously a sore subject and they don't really want to talk about it that is what I gather. Creditors are interested in anything that has monetary value . From that point of view, your "average" King James Bible worth as much as a recycling plant willing to pay for the equal amount of paper. While theoretically you MAY be required to sell it....... I doubt that EVER happened in modern times, not since Gideons had put Bible in every hotel room in USA.

Maestro Pistolero
07-30-2010, 3:27 PM
You're not losing the right to own a gun. You're losing the gun.That's a distinction without a difference. The 2A is the only enumerated right that directly includes owning and possessing an object, a firearm. Keeping, as it were, necessarily means retaining possession of the item to satisfy the core right.

jdberger
07-30-2010, 3:29 PM
Exactly. Right now it is political suicide for many of them to be anti-gun publicly. If the political winds ever shifted (or they perceived it, rightly or wrongly), they would go back to their old ways in an instant.

As would Republicans.

Lulfas
07-30-2010, 3:38 PM
So they have the authority to take your bible or other holy book to satisfy your debts?

Of course they can. It is property. Just because you choose to associate some mythical significance doesn't mean anything. It has a value in dollars and cents, and if you're enough of a screw up to have to file for bankruptcy, then you're going to lose stuff.

wash
07-30-2010, 3:42 PM
That's a distinction without a difference. the 2A is the only enumerated right that directly includes owning and possessing an object, a firearm. Keeping, as it were, necessarily means retaining possession of the item to satisfy the core right.
I must have missed the line for my free gun.

I had to pay for mine.

But any way, people will start getting solid gold guns made for exactly the purpose of retaining wealth through a bankruptcy. Just like they will draw as much cash out of their bank account as they can before they file and "give away" certain assets to family members.

It's more of the same except now a man in financial trouble might just be able to hang on to his heirloom gun that has been passed down in his family for generations or at least enough arms to defend himself.

Whiskey_Sauer
07-30-2010, 3:43 PM
That's a distinction without a difference. the 2A is the only enumerated right that directly includes owning and possessing an object, a firearm. Keeping, as it were, necessarily means retaining possession of the item to satisfy the core right.

LOL. So under this theory, if a Calgunner sold a M1911 to another Calgunner in the classifieds, took the money from the buyer but didn't transfer the gun, the buyer couldn't compel specific performance (i.e., a transfer of the gun) because the seller has a Second Amendment right to retain that gun? The buyer's only remedy is damages?

Gray Peterson
07-30-2010, 3:53 PM
Of course they can. It is property. Just because you choose to associate some mythical significance doesn't mean anything. It has a value in dollars and cents, and if you're enough of a screw up to have to file for bankruptcy, then you're going to lose stuff.

I guess my question is what other exemptions are there in the law.

-Gray

Whiskey_Sauer
07-30-2010, 3:55 PM
I guess my question is what other exemptions are there in the law.


There are fairly generous exemptions under both bankruptcy and state law. Too numerous to list, but I think $3,000 in firearms is more than fair.

Lulfas
07-30-2010, 3:57 PM
I guess my question is what other exemptions are there in the law.

-Gray

Found this on a law firm's website, so it is probably fairly accurate. However, I personally know almost nothing about it. (From Oregon. Different states have some different things. Reason people move to Florida to hide an expensive house and furnishings)


o Homestead (House with Land) with a value to $30,000.00 in equity for an individual and $39,600.00 for a married couple
o Vehicles with a value of $2,150.00 in equity for each individual (i.e. total of $4,300.00 for married couple)
o Clothing, Jewelry, and other personal items with a value of up to $1,800.00 each individual
o Household Furnishings and Appliances with a value of up to $3,000.00
o A Pistol and rifle or shotgun with a value up to $1,000.00
o Books, pictures, musical instruments, art and other similar items with a value up to $600.00
o 100% of Retirement accounts, 401(k), IRA, PERS, Pensions, and other similar retirement plans
o Cash, money in bank accounts, or other similar property up to $400.00
Tools of a business or trade to a value of $3,000.00


Other information I found while googling:

This only applies to 14 states, as 34 have opted-out of Federal bankruptcy exemptions in total, and 2 of the remaining already have firearms exemptions. (list of states (http://www.realworldlaw.com/stateoptout.html)) Notably, Iowa allows unlimited amount of firearms in quantity and value, making this seem like a pretty easy system to game. This seems like a bit of an anachronism, along with several other exemptions I found along the way (horses and sewing machines the two big ones that poked out at me.) Make of the extra info what you will.

MasterYong
07-30-2010, 4:21 PM
I'm not sure I'm happy about this.

While I'm happy they can't take "guns" ( or one very expensive gun) I'm really not happy the NRA supported this. I mean, there are some of us that have tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in guns, and the 2A doesn't say anything about me only needing ONE gun to defend myself. So, why the heck should I be happy with the NRA for supporting a bill that compromised by allowing creditors to take all but ONE of my guns (or several cheap guns) when they shouldn't be able to take ANY???

The only reason I would see it reasonable for a creditor to want to take a gun from me would be this: the money I owe that creditor was used to purchase said gun.

I know we can't have everything we want, but when the NRA makes such HUGE compromises it really irks me. That's why they get just my membership fees, and I give all the rest to organizations that are much less likely to compromise. I only really need their membership to be able to participate in certain events that require NRA membership anyways. (Didn't I read somewhere the NRA was largely responsible for the GCA?)

Whiskey_Sauer
07-30-2010, 4:30 PM
So, why the heck should I be happy with the NRA for supporting a bill that compromised by allowing creditors to take all but ONE of my guns (or several cheap guns) when they shouldn't be able to take ANY???

Um, because there wasn't a firearms exemption before, and now there is?

CCWFacts
07-30-2010, 4:38 PM
I think one of the things that bothers the poster to whom you responded, and frankly bothers me too, is the jocular tone that many people here take in discussing ways to avoid paying legal obligations. The suggestions of hiding money in single, large dollar, guns is disgusting. I'm sure that most folks are joking about it is still wrong.

You don't have a right to keep a $100,000 shotgun when you are claiming that you can't afford to pay your creditors. If someone wants to talk about keeping their 700, shotgun and a 1911 I'm all for that. They are tools that both keep one safe and can help put food on the table.

I'm one of the first to point out, very concretely, and perhaps jocularly, the concept of buying a $100k shotty to shelter assets. I was pointing it out not as a good thing, but rather a terrible oversight in the law. BK advisors' job is to find and exploit such opportunities and they're creating a big one if they don't put some low and reasonable dollar limit on this thing.

For those who are arguing that guns should be protected because of the 2A - sorry, that doesn't fly. Imagine someone saying, "books are protected by the 1A, therefore you can't take away my books." If that were upheld by courts or the legislature, again, BK advisors would figure that out and tell their clients to buy $100k antique books. Yes, there are plenty of antique books out there that go for $100k and up.

BK courts don't absolutely strip debtors of all their possessions. There are some allowances. There should be some allowances (should debtors walk out of court nude?). But putting no $$ limit on guns, or anything, will be an unfair asset protection.

That said, the legislature has also given some unfair powers to certain creditors. How is it that student loan debt has no expiration, no limit, and cannot be erased in bankruptcy? Is that really reasonable to privilege student loan debt over all other kinds of debt, and further to condemn someone to a lifetime of near-poverty for getting involved with exploitive lenders? I'm pointing this out only to show there are quite a lot of unfair or at least strange exemptions within the bankruptcy law.

radioactivelego
07-30-2010, 4:45 PM
What guns? Who has guns ... except for Ka registered handguns ? ... am I missing something?Not hard to order a gun on credit!

7x57
07-30-2010, 5:09 PM
Talking about a regular KJE bible.

I'm familiar with quite a few translations, and I am not aware of a KJE translation. Maybe it is a rare and expensive manuscript after all. ;)

7x57

MasterYong
07-30-2010, 5:20 PM
Um, because there wasn't a firearms exemption before, and now there is?

Re-read my post, and you'll see that your response has no relevance to my complaint at all.

wash
07-30-2010, 5:28 PM
Before this, creditors could take all of your guns.

Any way, if you have a $100,000 debt that you can't repay and a $10,000 gun collection, I think it's pretty generous to allow the debtor to retain $3,000 or more of that.

Whiskey_Sauer
07-30-2010, 5:31 PM
Re-read my post, and you'll see that your response has no relevance to my complaint at all.

Your "complaint" is that the NRA "compromised." You therefore asked why you should be "happy" with the NRA. I answered because there was not a specific firearms exemption before, and now there is, thanks to the bill. I answered your question. Sorry if that didn't make you feel any better about the law itself; I guess you wouldn't have been satisfied with anything less than an unlimited exemption?

GuyW
07-30-2010, 5:33 PM
That's a distinction without a difference. the 2A is the only enumerated right that directly includes owning and possessing an object, a firearm. Keeping, as it were, necessarily means retaining possession of the item to satisfy the core right.

There are arms other than firearms....
.

Maestro Pistolero
07-30-2010, 5:58 PM
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero
That's a distinction without a difference. the 2A is the only enumerated right that directly includes owning and possessing an object, a firearm. Keeping, as it were, necessarily means retaining possession of the item to satisfy the core right.
I must have missed the line for my free gun.

I had to pay for mine.
WTF? You have to own the thing in the first place for the law to apply. :confused:
LOL. So under this theory, if a Calgunner sold a M1911 to another Calgunner in the classifieds, took the money from the buyer but didn't transfer the gun, the buyer couldn't compel specific performance (i.e., a transfer of the gun) because the seller has a Second Amendment right to retain that gun? The buyer's only remedy is damages?

Huh? If he took the money, it was no longer his gun to keep. What kind of argument is that?

Again, the law deals with guns already owned at the time of bankruptcy. Maybe you geniuses ought to read the thread.

CCWFacts
07-30-2010, 6:03 PM
That's a distinction without a difference. The 2A is the only enumerated right that directly includes owning and possessing an object....

Not at all. The 1A clearly requires the means of publishing, books, and whatever items are needed for religious observances. If I'm bankrupt, do I get to hang on to my $100,000 printing press? My $100,000 antique bible? My $20,000 Torah scroll that's been in my family for 200 years (hypothetical - I don't own any of these things).

Whiskey_Sauer
07-30-2010, 6:44 PM
Huh? If he took the money, it was no longer his gun to keep. What kind of argument is that?

Again, the law deals with guns already owned at the time of bankruptcy. Maybe you geniuses ought to read the thread.

No. If title never transfers because of failure to deliver, the gun is not owned by the buyer. The buyer needs to sue for specific performance to compel transfer. But under your theory, the buyer would be prevented from doing so... because of the Second Amendment?

And by the way, I'm just taking your argument to its logical conclusion, i.e., if the Second Amendment prevents creditors from taking guns from debtors, it must always prevent creditors from taking guns from debtors, not just in the bankruptcy context.

Maestro Pistolero
07-30-2010, 7:00 PM
Not at all. The 1A clearly requires the means of publishing, books, and whatever items are needed for religious observances. If I'm bankrupt, do I get to hang on to my $100,000 printing press? My $100,000 antique bible? My $20,000 Torah scroll that's been in my family for 200 years (hypothetical - I don't own any of these things).

My point is the 2A is the only amendment whose central component is the ownership of an item. Certainly other rights protect possession of items incidental, but necessary, to the exercise of the right.

Maestro Pistolero
07-30-2010, 7:02 PM
Whiskey_Sauer: No. If title never transfers because of failure to deliver, the gun is not owned by the buyer. The buyer needs to sue for specific performance to compel transfer. But under your theory, the buyer would be prevented from doing so... because of the Second Amendment?

And by the way, I'm just taking your argument to its logical conclusion, i.e., if the Second Amendment prevents creditors from taking guns from debtors, it must always prevent creditors from taking guns from debtors, not just in the bankruptcy context.

The context of the law, AND my comments were a bankruptcy.

". . .the buyer would be prevented from doing so... because of the Second Amendment?"


Not in my opinion as the law pertains only to bankruptcy seizures. That's why your argument doesn't make sense to me.

mzimmers
07-30-2010, 7:03 PM
If I'm bankrupt, do I get to hang on to my $100,000 printing press? My $100,000 antique bible? My $20,000 Torah scroll that's been in my family for 200 years (hypothetical - I don't own any of these things).

Note to self: scratch "burgle CCWFacts' home" off tonight's to-do list...

Whiskey_Sauer
07-30-2010, 7:18 PM
Not in my opinion as the law pertains only to bankruptcy seizures. That's why your argument doesn't make sense to me.

Well, you put forth the proposition that the Second Amendment should prevent a creditor (or more correctly stated, a bankruptcy trustee) from liquidating guns to satisfy a creditor's claim. You distinguished the right to own a firearm generally from a right to keep a specific firearm because, under your view, the Second Amendment is the only right that specifically endorses a possessory right in any tangible thing. And I simply took that to its logical extension, i.e., if the Second Amendment is absolute under your application, it must always prevent a creditor from using a debtor's firearm to satisfy a judgment or claim. Hence, my hypothetical, i.e., a buyer of a firearm could not sue to compel specific performance, because the Second Amendment would always prevent a creditor from taking possession of that firearm.

But okay, let's keep it in the bankruptcy context just for fun. Say a debtor borrows $200,000 from a little old lady in Pasadena. He tells her its for an investment, but doesn't tell her specifically what the investment is. He goes out and buys $200,000 worth of firearms, with the hope that he will quickly be able to turn them around for a profit. But his is wrong (foolish, perhaps, but assume he did not act with fraudulent intent), and the market for the firearms now could only yield $100,000, half of what he paid for them. He is unable to pay the lady back her $200,000 loan, and for other reasons, is forced to file for bankruptcy. He has absolutely no other assets to his name. Are you saying that the bankruptcy trustee should not be able to liquidate the $97,000 worth of firearms in his possession at the time of BK ($100,000 value, minus $3,000 exemption) for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate, and to pay the creditors pro rata, including the little old lady, because the Second Amendment protects his right to own these guns?

CCWFacts
07-30-2010, 8:46 PM
So they have the authority to take your bible or other holy book to satisfy your debts?

As someone else here said, the only reason they do not take the debtor's bible is because a) it has no monetary value and b) people very often omit to declare such assets. But if it were a holy book that had some monetary value, and it wasn't covered by some state exemption (usually they allow a few thousand $$ worth of some stuff), then yes, they absolutely would take it.

Bibles may have infinite value to some, but common printings have no monetary value.

The same would apply to guns. I'm sure creditors have no interest in guns of the type that list for $100 on Gun Broker. They're interested in money, not in wasting time or holding a rummage sale.

Maestro Pistolero
07-30-2010, 10:13 PM
Are you saying that the bankruptcy trustee should not be able to liquidate the $97,000 worth of firearms in his possession at the time of BK ($100,000 value, minus $3,000 exemption) for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate, and to pay the creditors pro rata, including the little old lady, because the Second Amendment protects his right to own these guns?No. Why would I say that? The limit is $3.000. If you have three thousand dollars worth of guns, I think an argument could be made that your gun ownership satisfies the protection of the second amendment. If you must construct such an elaborate, unusual scenario, which includes not just keeping and bearing arms but dealing them (which would be covered under the commerce laws, by the way), perhaps your argument lacks merit.

Whiskey_Sauer
07-30-2010, 10:23 PM
No. Why would I say that? The limit is $3.000. If you have three thousand dollars worth of guns, I think an argument could be made that your gun ownership satisfies the protection of the second amendment. If you must construct such an elaborate, unusual scenario, which includes not just keeping and bearing arms but dealing them (which would be covered under the commerce laws, by the way), perhaps your argument lacks merit.

Okay, I think you're failing to understand your own argument, wherein you suggested that firearms should be treated differently than other personal property, in bankruptcy, because firearms ownership is a protected right. That sounded pretty absolute. (I believe you said you don't lose your second amendment rights just because you're broke.) I see now that you appear to agree with the stated $3,000 exemption.

By the way, the hypothetical scenario I constructed is neither elaborate nor unusual. It happens, though not necessarily in a firearms context, every day.

Maestro Pistolero
07-31-2010, 12:36 AM
Okay, I think you're failing to understand your own argument How? You can assert that, but my argument is simple and clear. The law as I understand it, allows you to keep your firearms, up to the value of 3K, in order to avoid depriving a citizen of his/her ability to exercise a fundamental right. I agree with that law, and there is historical basis for it in tax law and elsewhere.

By the way, the hypothetical scenario I constructed is neither elaborate nor unusual.It is far more elaborate than the case of a person with <3K worth of guns who is going through bankruptcy. So it has no bearing whatsoever in the context of the law being discussed for the reasons I have pointed out.

So, here we have a limited law designed only to prevent the taking of the only means to exercise a fundamental right, and you concoct a scenario far beyond the reach of that law as an argument against it. The argument being without factual, relevant, contextual basis, makes no sense.

7x57
07-31-2010, 12:59 AM
Note to self: scratch "burgle CCWFacts' home" off tonight's to-do list...

Too bad. That Torah scroll sounded sweeeet. But on second thought, I recall from Indiana Jones what happens when you steal ancient Jewish artifacts....

7x57

CnCFunFactory
07-31-2010, 3:25 AM
Most people only have 500-1000 dollars worth of firearms. ....

:smilielol5:

CCWFacts
07-31-2010, 7:40 AM
Too bad. That Torah scroll sounded sweeeet. But on second thought, I recall from Indiana Jones what happens when you steal ancient Jewish artifacts....

I'm glad I'm safe for the moment! Re: Torah scrolls: you wouldn't think there would be a lot of demand for stolen Torah scrolls, but, unfortunately, there is and there are lots of instances of it happening. There is a surprising amount (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/nyregion/29scrolls.html) of Torah (http://jta.org/news/article/2010/05/31/2739379/torah-scrolls-stolen-from-antwerp-synagogue) scroll theft (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3584726,00.html) going on. They are valuable, unmarked, and not well-guarded. Security researcher Bruce Schneier made a blog post on methods to mark Torah scrolls (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/06/torah_security.html) to decrease the amount of Torah rustling going on.

mzimmers
07-31-2010, 7:45 AM
Filling out form for CCW -- reason for applying: "to protect persons and Pentateuch."

Aegis
07-31-2010, 12:59 PM
Cite please. If you are going to make a claim about 99% of anyone it should be pretty easy to back it up.

Are you implying that most Democrat politicians support the 2A? Who do you think drafts and supports all of the anti 2A laws?

If it weren't for the Democrats, we would have no 2A rights. :rolleyes:

dantodd
07-31-2010, 1:02 PM
Are you implying that most Democrat politicians support the 2A? Who do you think drafts and supports all of the anti 2A laws?

If it weren't for the Democrats, we would have no 2A rights. :rolleyes:

No, I am saying that the number of anti's in the list of elected democrats is far less than 99%.

7x57
07-31-2010, 2:01 PM
I'm glad I'm safe for the moment!


Maybe, but you'd better keep checking your six for us sneaky shkotzim. :D


Re: Torah scrolls: you wouldn't think there would be a lot of demand for stolen Torah scrolls, but, unfortunately, there is and there are lots of instances of it happening.


Now that's just wrong. What's worse is that those stories suggest that inside jobs are common. That's more disturbing than random burglary. I was going to ask who is buying hot scrolls, on the idea that surely the market is insular enough to be somewhat controllable, but one article also pointed out that ransom is common. (But how do you manage the transaction without getting picked up by the police? I suppose the pros have their methods.)


Security researcher Bruce Schneier made a blog post on methods to mark Torah scrolls (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/06/torah_security.html) to decrease the amount of Torah rustling going on.

Hmm. IIRC a proper Torah scroll is always hand-lettered. That ought to mean that (1) at the very least one could identify the calligrapher(s), and at the speed of hand-lettering that should narrow it down quite a bit, and (2) surely a detailed image, even of a few pages, would be essentially a "fingerprint" because of the inevitable variations in hand-lettering. I don't see why the pin*****s are necessary instead of simply keeping a database of high-resolution scans.

Apropos of nothing, I managed to visit the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit in San Diego a few years ago, and the lettering can be quite beautiful.

7x57

CCWFacts
07-31-2010, 9:32 PM
What's worse is that those stories suggest that inside jobs are common.

Yeah, I'm sure it's 90% inside jobs. At my schul (I'm only an occasional attendee), basically all the regulars have the shared door code with 24 hour access. I assume arrangements like that are common, and when you have a large enough group of people, and someone is in a personal financial crisis and sees an "easy" $100k sitting there without any protection... well, humans are humans.

That's more disturbing than random burglary.

Random burglars (meth heads and so on) wouldn't have any idea to grab Torah scrolls. They would spend the evening pulling the copper wire out of the wall and wouldn't even notice the $100k in parchment sitting there.

I was going to ask who is buying hot scrolls, on the idea that surely the market is insular enough to be somewhat controllable,

Eh, I doubt it. It's probably a market run by a bunch of small dealers, with lots of international buying and selling and unreported transactions, and there are always plenty of corrupt dealers in situations like that. These things have no serial numbers, no identification.

but one article also pointed out that ransom is common.

I've never heard of that, but it sounds entirely possible.

(But how do you manage the transaction without getting picked up by the police? I suppose the pros have their methods.)

The ransomers are dealing with some very unworldly people who don't know how to deal with such situations. And if it is an inside job, they might even have a touch of sympathy for the crook who they've known for 20 years.

Hmm. IIRC a proper Torah scroll is always hand-lettered.

Yes, always.

That ought to mean that (1) at the very least one could identify the calligrapher(s), and at the speed of hand-lettering that should narrow it down quite a bit, and (2) surely a detailed image, even of a few pages, would be essentially a "fingerprint" because of the inevitable variations in hand-lettering. I don't see why the pin*****s are necessary instead of simply keeping a database of high-resolution scans.

That seems logical to me. It would be simple to scan a few (or even all) the sheets and store it digitally in a registry, and there are enough variations in calligraphy to make them all completely unique. Someday they'll get around to doing such things.

I do wonder though - maybe there's some reluctance to scan them because it might show up some variations in the letters...

a1c
07-31-2010, 10:01 PM
Exactly. Right now it is political suicide for many of them to be anti-gun publicly. If the political winds ever shifted (or they perceived it, rightly or wrongly), they would go back to their old ways in an instant.

Do you want a list of Republican politicians who have authored or supported anti-gun measures?

bjl333
08-05-2010, 10:26 AM
I just reread the whole post. Some of you won't give up anything, some of you will.

My question is: Who will enforce the $3000 limit ??? For the sake of arguement ... A person buys everything in cash and he has no CC transaction records for purchasing firearms. Whos gonna look for his firearms over $3000 ??? I can't picture how they can find the firearms over $3000. Are they gonna get a Swat team to raid the house to seize everything. :eek:

robcoe
08-05-2010, 10:42 AM
This law makes sense to me, when I was growing up in the Sierra Nevada foothills some of my friends whos familys were going through hard times only had meat on the table because of their dads rifle. Guns are not just for killing people or target practice, they are also(for a lot of guns principly) for getting food.

Cobrafreak
08-05-2010, 10:52 AM
OK, seriously, who out there want the job of being a gun repo-man. What would the life expectancy of a gun repo-man be? 3 jobs before you are shot in the head? That would be a great tv show.

Maestro Pistolero
08-05-2010, 10:54 AM
Guns are not just for killing people or target practice, they are also(for a lot of guns principly) for getting food.
Yep. They preserve life in many ways.

Mitchell_in_CT
08-05-2010, 2:34 PM
Bankruptcy is an extreme remedy. You are only entitled to a discharge on a time restricted basis to prevent you from cycling through creditors in a revolving door manner.

Your right to bear arms shouldn't be forfit due to debt; however, if you are going to tell your creditors that they aren't going to be paid, something aught to give.

If that something is, for example, a transferable machinegun, some other NFA gear, or high dollar shotguns...Those are the breaks.

If you are a small business owner or a tradesman (plumber, carpenter, landscaper...) and the people who owe you money for your labor do a bankruptcy, you don't get paid.

(Yes, I am familiar with mechanics liens. It's an example...)

If on average 3 people who owe you $2,000 for work performed don't pay you every year, that means you loose $6,000 in income you will almost definately not recover.

I don't think it's fair for someone to tell a guy who's paycheck to paycheck he isn't going to get paid for the work he performed...but the guy who isn't going to pay is allowed to keep a transferable H&K with a fun switch.

If the Trustee leaves you with a basic, yet effective defense/hunting setup, and $3,000 gets you a nice setup, your right to keep and bear arms is not abrogated.

You shouldn't be disarmed because of a bankruptcy...But allowed to retain high dollar firearms, merely because they are firearms?

Sorry, don't agree with that.

bjl333
08-05-2010, 9:41 PM
You shouldn't be disarmed because of a bankruptcy...But allowed to retain high dollar firearms, merely because they are firearms?

Sorry, don't agree with that.

I understand what you are saying mitchell. What I don't understand is how they determine the value, and how can they recover the firearms ... or jewelry or whatever !! An image of an older gent with a double barrel shotgun welcoming the repo man comes to mind ... :eek:

Mitchell_in_CT
08-06-2010, 7:48 AM
You declare your assets on the petition you file with the court, and you do so under penalty of perjury.

As to the value of your assets, the creditors or the trustee would have it appraised if they chose; if you wanted to contest it, you could file an objection an your own estimates from a dealer.

Many times it really doesn't matter, as most people's assets aren't worth very much, and the cases is declared a no asset bankruptcy - "We'd give the creditors what this guy has...but he doesn't have anything. Sorry..."

It's times when the debtor does have significant personal property to satisfy debts that this issue comes up.

At that point, G0D (also known as the trustee) decides what to do with things.

AyatollahGondola
08-06-2010, 9:18 PM
It's a self defense mechanism to remain appealing to voters. There is going to be a noticable amount of Democrats showing support for gun rights even though they probably don't personally give a crap about the 2nd Amendment.

Shocking news for you: Republicans do the exact same thing. Just witness Meg Whitman on gun rights, for instance.

AIP Nightingale also. Makes for good theater for many candidates who had very little, to no history of outspoken support before a campaign

AyatollahGondola
08-06-2010, 9:35 PM
I don't believe the law refers to an exemption for any amount, but rather it does not restrict the exemption of a single firearm to the lesser or greater amount exempted for a single type. so if the total is 3k. but you have a shotgun worth 1500, and a rifle worth 1200, you keep both. But if you have one rifle worth 2K, you will not have to give it up because it exceeds the maximum exempt for a single firearm. You get to use the aggregate exemption for one firearm. In addition, your total maximum exemption cannot exceed the stated limit in aggregate, with the exception of some states that permit real property...one real property as a homestead, with either higher or no limits. So if you had 2 horses, one car, 1 diamond ring etc, etc..until your maximum personal property exemption is reached of say 18 or 20k. The total exemption for personal property in aggregate would prohibit keeping a 30 thousand dollar gun on top of your 15K in other personal property

Yeah, I know...:sleeping::sleeping::sleeping: law is nothing if not long winded

AyatollahGondola
08-06-2010, 9:43 PM
Here's the applicable section

‘(xvi) The debtor’s aggregate interest, not to exceed $3,000 in value, in a single rifle, shotgun, or pistol, or any combination thereof.’.