Skip to comments.NRA-Backed "Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act of 2010" Passes U.S. House
Posted on 07/29/2010 12:00:08 AM PDT by neverdem
Fairfax, Va. -- Today, by a margin of 307-113, a bipartisan majority of the U.S. House of Representatives voted to amend the federal definition of protected household goods to include firearms on the list of items that cannot be seized by creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding.
NRA-supported H.R. 5827, offered by U.S. Representative John Boccieri (OH-16), would ensure that a person who files for bankruptcy would not lose the constitutionally- protected means of protecting themselves and their families. The bill sets a cap of $3,000 on the value of a firearm collection eligible for the protection, so people in bankruptcy proceedings can continue to own serviceable firearms.
The Senate companion bill is S. 3654, sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT).
I take it that this is really just an effort to get you to declare that you have them, so they know where to come and get them?
Besides, we already know that the NRA has been selling us down the river for year, more brazenly with each passing month. Who’s going to buy that this is for the good of the people? Not!
I’m cynical about Congress no matter what, but I do not need to unroll that much tin foil about this. It may suffice that this is a sop to hick Democrat voters near the November elections. The value of a set of guns would be determined at the point of a bankruptcy, where all assets need to be declared anyhow. If there’s something about registration or declaration to government here (besides the bankruptcy court) then the Senate ought to push back.
This bill limits the value of the collection at $3,000. You could very well be right about it just being a sop, but since it passed some 300 odd to 100 odd in the House, I’m more skeptical.
In my opinion, what is more likely to be the case is that for those who would hide their firearms, and risk getting caught and penalized (but willing to take the penalty), that this is an “olive branch,” of sorts. Ie. “Why take the risk (minimal as it may be if you were to hide something well) of hiding those assets (and risk being caught), when you can declare them, and be able to keep them anyhow, and not worry about being later fined/jailed.”
I would have you know, that Congress is the worst group of lying, thieving tyrants to possible come accross this earth, they just put on a nice face for us. I’d add to that, that I know of ZERO bills that have been passed in many, many decades that have been for the good for the people, and not to rob and enslave us. That being said, there are only two forms in which congress has passed those bills.
Secretive bills, which are an all out affront, but which wouldn’t pass public scrutiny, that have midnight votes, and 1000’s of pages, the “Pig in a poke,” as it were. Then there’s the ones that look so benevolent and for out own good, that are twisted by an ulterior motive, to charm us into a happy faced tyranny, the “Wolf in sheep’s clothing.” That is what I believe this bill to be, but time can only tell.
I am unaware of how such items would be treated in bankruptcies, not having been “fortunate” enough to go through the experience... yet. I’m told there is a dollar value limited exemption category for miscellaneous household property. Unless I’m mistaken, the party declaring bankruptcy could choose a gun or guns to be lumped in with that, before. This makes the provision more generous, with a nod to the USSC’s recent sentiment about guns being important to home security. The Congress can see how even an Obamized America wants to keep its guns, and this looks like an election season sop to me.
I agree that it at least appears to be more generous. I’ve been blessed to never go through bankruptcy either. But I still maintain that Congress as a whole, never has this much support for a bill that won’t somehow come bite us back. I guess we’ll see. Hopefully, I’m wrong.
True, maybe the Rats see this as ripe for adding riders to in the future, to attempt to pry past the privacy of the bankruptcy court. As it stands it seems harmless enough.
I take it this got most or all the GOP votes but split the Rats. I think hunters know where their bread is buttered.
That ain’t bi-partisan.
“As it stands it seems harmless enough.”
That’s where red flags pop up and my BS meter pegs out at max.
This is an area that I had never considered. I don’t have any experience with BK, but a $3k cap doesn’t seem like enough. A few nice antique guns or a machine gun and the person is over the limit. It would be better if it was raised to $20k or unlimited.
The lesson is to convert as many of your worldly goods as possible to firearms prior to going belly-up!
Up to $3K worth, that is!
$3,000 covers about 1.5 of my guns.
If you have antique guns worth over $20K, they’d be great assets for the debtors to use to recoup their money. This is about losing all your guns, removing your ability to protect yourself IAW the 2nd Amendment. Even $3K is pretty generous for that.
Medical debt is unsecured. Asset seizure for unsecured debt should be extremely limited in chapter 7 cases, and prohibited in chapter 11 or 13 as long as the repayment schedule is followed.
It’s likely that someone in dire financial straights with high value antiue guns may have inherited them or they have some other emotional tie. Most people who are in a deep financial hole will sell off items that have no emotional ties willingly.
The 2nd amendment is about protecting the country against an overreaching government or its’ agents. Self defense is a strawman argument that has gained widereaching popularity lately at the expense of the true meaning of the 2nd amendment. A machine gun is one of the best defensive tools against multiple attackers or those who already have MG’s at taxpayer expense. There are practically none that can be had for <$3000, so such a low limit only serves to identify those people out there with firearms, not protect the 2nd amendment.
“...Oh some will say we don’t use taxpayer money for bankruptcy, and I say BS.”
Where do you get the idea that taxpayers pay for the bankruptcy of individuals? Do you have a source for your call of BS?
Taxpayer monies are not used in BK cases. Court and administrative costs are paid by the petitioner, and the creditors don’t receive any funds other than what is recouped from the person who is petitioning for BK. That’s why most creditors end up with, at best, pennies on the dollar with no legal recourse.
Exactly. How would they know what firearms you have in order to seize them in bankruptcy proceedings anyway, unless you already live in a gun grabber state with registration?
Today, by a margin of 307-113, a bipartisan majority of the U.S. House of Representatives voted to amend the federal definition of protected "household goods" to include firearms on the list of items that cannot be seized by creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding.That'll pretty much put an end to bankruptcies, period. ;') Thanks neverdem.
Every state has "exemptions" from execution by judgment creditors. If a judgment for damages is entered by a court the creditor is entitled to have property seized by the sheriff to pay the judgment. Real estate can be foreclosed on to pay the judgment. There is in most states a list of property that cannot be seized, such as a "homestead" in real estate up to a certain dollar value. Pension funds can't be seized. There is a list of personal property items up to certain dollar values, such as so much value in an automobile, or clothing, or work tools, etc. that can't be seized.
Similarly, when someone files bankruptcy their property is subject to collection by a trustee to sell to pay creditors what they are owed. There is a list of federal exemptions that somewhat mirrors the state exemptions, however, and that property may be kept by the debtor.
Most states do not consider guns to be household goods and so guns have generally not been considered exempt from seizure to pay debts.
To make this even more complicated, a bankruptcy debtor can choose which exemptions to use, state or federal. However, a number of states think the federal exemptions are too generous and have "opted out" meaning bankrupts in that state have to use the state exemptions.
So, very long story short, this bill creates a federal bankruptcy exemption for guns up to $3,000 value. A bankrupt will be able to keep a gun or guns of equal or lesser value.
Although I haven't read the bill, this will probably not apply in "opt out" states, unless they have their own exemption for guns. Further legislation would be needed there.
Clear as mud?
That's such an idiotic statement on so many levels.
I wouldn’t know.
We have no fireams here.
It’s been MUCH longer than a year.
Back in the 90s, I found a website that listed their ‘under the radar’ connections to “liberal” organizations and I haven’t trusted them as far as I could throw them ever since.
I’ve always wondered eaxctly how wise it is to even be on their “membership” list.
If the time ever comes, I want to be -hard- to find.
I can’t believe how ridiculous you folks are. You are always claiming that BP is going to pass it along to customers but you don’t think that credit card companies are too or stores or car companies. I guess because you didn’t bring it up it must not be true. Another head in the sand FREEPER who only bashes. I guess if it makes you feel better instead of giving an intelligent post it is ok.
Oh I believe you. I foolishly signed up for a free one year membership a few years ago. I never sent them any money after learning more about the NRA, but after a year or two of not getting me to donate, I quit getting mail/emails from them. I’m still probably on a list somewhere, but I’m sure I would have been from posting on FR anyway. Oh well, I’ve got nothing to take anyway...
Yep. You’ve lost your mind. Your reply has nothing to do with my post replying to your initial post, which made no sense at all.
Oh you bring so much to the conversation...what a waste.
What about my mud? Can I keep my mud? Or will the bastards seize that too? ;’)
Ya know, I bet Texas would have an exemption for “mud.” :-))
Your original post talked about tax payer money in personal bankruptcy. How does that equate to businesses raising the price in a commercial bankruptcy.
BTW, I went bankrupt 20 years ago and don't remember anything about getting money from the govt. In fact, tax liabilities are excluded from bankruptcy so how did the taxpayer pay for mine?