H.R. 3933: Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act of 2014 [More]While discussing this on our GRE Facebook page, Kurt noted the antis went full-blown, spittle-flecked hysterical when an earlier version of this bill was up for consideration.
That said, if you owe me money and have some guns in your estate, why shouldn't I be able to recover value owed? What am I misreading here?
[Via Chris Woodard]
So you're okay with taking a person's tool to protect themselves (and family) in order for them to settle their debt to you?
ReplyDeleteFrom what I am understanding of this legislation, it would prevent creditors from taking possession of firearms under a certain value to settle the debt.
Looking at 11USC522(d)1 for the original language, to understand exactly what the change does...
ReplyDeleteCurrent law prevents the taking of some property in a bankruptcy, such as housing, basic transportation, and tools of one's trade. The theory behind this is to allow the debtor something to make a new start so he can begin earning a living again. And there are monetary limits. You don't get to keep your hundred million dollar mansion or that Lamborghini Countach.
This bill just adds basic firearms to the list of living necessities one can keep. And like the others, the monetary value is capped, so your creditors can still demand that $20,000 double rifle in payment.
Seems to me such a limited exception (just $3,000 in total value) would protect a right of self-defense. We make exceptions for inexpensive cars so you can drive to work and for your (inexpensive) home so you can live, along with necessary household goods, so why not this? We might argue about the particular value protected, but protecting some modest amount of guns from seizure due to bankruptcy isn't out of line with the other exceptions, especially considering that the Supreme Court has ruled that self-defense is a fundamental right.
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 1:14: Cool it with the jumping to conclusions. I asked why I shouldn't be able to recover what I'm owed and what I was misreading. I did not proclaim a position.
ReplyDeleteBear and dittybopper--thanks for the explanation. That's a whole 'nother conversation.