Bankruptcy Act of 2010

[baz]

From the Buckeye Firearms Association:
NRA-Backed "Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act of 2010" Passes U.S. House
Submitted by cbaus on Thu, 07/29/2010 - 15:00.

On Wednesday, July 28, 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.B. 3654, sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT).

[allingeneral]

ooo-whee! That's an interesting piece of legislation. Thanks for posting!

[baz]

Thanks! I thought so, too.

[gunderwood]

I hope it passes, but a $3k cap seems unreasonable. There are carry guns and ARs costing more than that. Inflation is a harsh master.

[chfaunce]

I hope it passes, but a $3k cap seems unreasonable. There are carry guns and ARs costing more than that. Inflation is a harsh master.

Agreed! Coincidentally, the $3k number is in line with the current Federal micropurchase threshold limit as defined in FAR 2.101 - I wonder if there's any correlation.

[VBshooter]

Nothing says those arms can't disappear for a spell if you ever had to file!

[gunderwood]

I hope it passes, but a $3k cap seems unreasonable. There are carry guns and ARs costing more than that. Inflation is a harsh master.

Agreed! Coincidentally, the $3k number is in line with the current Federal micropurchase threshold limit as defined in FAR 2.101 - I wonder if there's any correlation.

Yes. but it is a collection, not just an individual purchase.

[gunderwood]

Nothing says those arms can't disappear for a spell if you ever had to file!

AFAIK, the state compels you to testify under oath that you did not do just that.

[chfaunce]

I hope it passes, but a $3k cap seems unreasonable. There are carry guns and ARs costing more than that. Inflation is a harsh master.

Agreed! Coincidentally, the $3k number is in line with the current Federal micropurchase threshold limit as defined in FAR 2.101 - I wonder if there's any correlation.

Yes. but it is a collection, not just an individual purchase.

Depends on who's making the purchase, and whether or not they (they buyer) view a collection, or "lot", as a unit of measure. The $3k is per transaction, not necessarily per item. The Government could by one thing at $3k, or a set of things at $3k. I was just wondering how arbitrary the $3k limit really was...

Note / Edit: To avoid confusion, I am assuming that the buyer is the Government, and not an indvidual / private buyer. The $3k limit is the limit at which a price / cost analysis is not required. Short of Saturday Night Specials, I think the $3k cap is unreasonable and, well, ridiculous.

[gunderwood]

Depends on who's making the purchase, and whether or not they (they buyer) view a collection, or "lot", as a unit of measure. The $3k is per transaction, not necessarily per item. The Government could by one thing at $3k, or a set of things at $3k. I was just wondering how arbitrary the $3k limit really was...

Same here. The way I read it and certainly how your creditor would argue it is collection. That probably includes accessories like scopes too. A glock and a nice AR/scope and that is all you get to keep as far as I can tell.

[chfaunce]

Same here. The way I read it and certainly how your creditor would argue it is collection. That probably includes accessories like scopes too. A glock and a nice AR/scope and that is all you get to keep as far as I can tell.

True! I think you're correct - they definitely need to define "collection". I'm guessing that would be open to diverse interpretation.

[OakRidgeStars]

Guess who's slimy fingerprints are all over this one?

http://bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1273/

[baz]

Guess who's slimy fingerprints are all over this one?

http://bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1273/

I doubt those anti-gun groups will have any effect on the bill. They claim a gun is the last thing they need after bankruptcy. But, the first thing those anti-gun groups need is to read the constitution.

[VBshooter]

Not surprised that they are,,,They are batting pretty much 000 for the year and need to get behind something to appease the membership.. Bunch of anal retentive old ladies IMHO. Every time one of them speaks out they make an ass of themselves, I doubt they'll have much effect on this either,, Love the way they come across as experts on what a family needs while going through bankruptcy..As time goes by hopefully they'll become more and more ineffective and just go away,,,,,