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:
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?
Follow Josh Sugarmann on Twitter: www.twitter.com/VPCinfo
No registration of firearms down here, there is no way of knowing who has what or how many.
I did have 50+ firearms but since that boating accident I lost them in the bottom of the lake
As long as one has a gun there's a possibility that he will just pull that trigger to anyone at anytime.
http://www.bankruptcydistrictcourt.com/
The WHOLE thing?
Maybe you should just go back to the drawing boards and figure out the various outcomes and their probabilities. Otherwise, someone might characterize your argument as infantile.
Capsulized summary:
* It would add an exemption for ONE firearm with a maximum value of $1500.
* It would only apply in the 16 jurisdictions that allow bankruptcy filers to use the federal exemption schedule, in the first place. (In a majority of states, state law sets the parameters of what is and is not included in a bankruptcy estate.)
Although not mentioned by Mr. Sugarmann, several states already provide a firearm exemption.
On analysis, the actual import of HR5827 appears to be pretty limited. The essential feature of the proposed law appears to be: "Giving legislators from rural, poor states an easy way to score a couple points back home with the electorate." And maybe: "Giving the Violence Policy Center fresh fodder about 'the crazy NRA.'"
Your article trots out the same tired statistics, but they are truly irrelevant. The citizens protected by this proposed legislation ALREADY HAVE the guns in their homes. How can this bill possibly increase the potential risk of murder suicide? It can't. But can it allow homeowners to keep firearms in their home for future protection - indeed, that's its intended purpose.
As far as the "murder/suicide" thing goes, we shouldn't be using financial laws to disarm people because they *might* do something violent out of desperation. That is a ridiculous argument that only someone more interested in disarming people than preventing violence would make.
How about we figure out how to prevent people from getting into such dire financial straits (health care insurance reform, no more easy credit, usury laws) and how to help people who do (bankruptcy protection, family and financial counseling, community support)?
Anything not used primarily for trade, business or professional purposes and owned by an individual is considered "personal, family or household use of the debtor ". If they are used in your trade or profession, you would be able to exempt them under a "tools of the trade" exemption. This might include security officers, professional hunting guides and the like... but probably could not be used by a professional bank robber, lol
DaveNYC answered your other questions, with my refinement thereon..
To me, addiction is when your desires trump that which benefits you or acts in your own interest. And as if much more was needed to show that little rationality exists in gun addiction (despite the gun addicts' tortured arguments and claims based on rare events), we have this craven NRA fellow traveller enabling it. You'll lose your house or your possessions, but you'll keep your bang bangs. This shameless politico is like a social worker arguing that alcoholics should be able to keep their booze if they go into bankruptcy.
You conservatives are constantly screaming about financial responsibility.
Why should I pay for some gun-slinger's gun?
http://tofilebankruptcyornot.com
Anyone knows that a gun can be stashed anywhere to avoid seizure during bankruptcy. Unless of course you are a gun addict and have an arsenal at home!
Another bunch of wasted tax dollars used up on lobbying pressure!
How do YOU define a "gun addict" and an "arsenal"?
Your point about hiding guns from the bankruptcy estate is prescient.
Since we are talking about an exemption for ONE firearm only, the reality is that the law would only have a de minimus effect.
How about a pet dog? How about camping equipment? How about a big screen, 1080p 240mhz, 3d, 52" inch, LED TV? How about a stamp collection? All of which can be exempted using federal exemptions.
Your opinion is based solely upon your own values sytem and does not apply to everyone.
insanity beyond imagination
Theis from the party that has a lot of pressure
on the Democrats to not bail out homeowners
Preaching the necessity of financial responsibility!
but are going to try to bail out the gunslingers.
Elect more Democrats if you want real mortgate help.
So we end up with a few nut cases.
And the rebublican Party ends up with a few sane electeds.
We do have Dems who are really "Republican light."
Our Republican Democrats and Republicans will vote yes on this insanity.
As a little side thing to this argument. My interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, which states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." does not specifically protect an individual's right to own and bear arms but for the state's right to have a well regulated militia to bear those arms. A well regulated state militia does not exist anymore and the job is filled by the state military reserves, which now bear the arms. And no, the local s k i n h e a d s and n e o n a z i e s do not count as a well regulated militia.
and/or their families.
There are over 80 million legal gun owners in the nation. Where are the 80 million homicides that should be happening if your logic made sense?
and/or their families. "
Why do you seek violence?
Seems a little incongruous with your icon image.
And the strawmen keep going up.....
The legalization of CCW in bars is only for those who don't drink. It's no different then letting people drive to bars. So the whole point of guns and booze not mixing is meaningless.
"Hurting the movement"? Don't kid yourself. These laws are being passed left and right. They are a sign of strength.
"As a little side thing to this argument. My interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, which states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." does not specifically protect an individual's right to own and bear arms but for the state's right to have a well regulated militia to bear those arms."
I hate to break it to you, but your interpretation doesn't matter since you don't have the final say on the constitution. The Supreme Court does, and they have ruled against your interpretation. Live with it.
We know who won't protect the families: The Violence Policy Center and police.
Josh, Josh, Josh, you really need to come up with some new tricks. It hardly even needs to be said that such facts are misleading and useless since the vast majority of firearm self defense incidents do not result in a criminal being killed. Most are resolved with no shots fired. And when shots are fired, they do not always result in fatal hits.
One measures the effectiveness of firearm self defense by lives saved, not criminals killed. That is, unless one is a gun ban fantatic who has a vested interest in making the number of firearm self defense incidents look smaller then they really are.
Semper fi
How about the lives lost due to the guns that were purchased for self defense and they ended up killing innocent people? I personally knew three children who were killed due to their parent's inability or unwillingness to put in safe guards for those guns. What about those innocent lives? According to the Centers for Disease Control and the National Center for Injury Prevention and control, from 1999 to 2007 (the earliest and latest dates they have available online) 6,587 people were unintentionally killed by firearms. Who is speaking up about those lives?
And a pretty lousy one at that. Gun accident deaths have been plummetting for years and do not rank anywhere near the top catagory of causes for accidental deaths. Furthermore, nearly all of them are preventable since they were caused by human error. Properly working firearms don't fire by themselves.
The way to prevent gun accidents is with proper education and training, something Josh and his ilk are totally against.