Quote of the day–John Boccieri

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.

In response, I urge you to join me in becoming an original cosponsor of The Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act of 2010. 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.

John Boccieri U.S. Representative (Democrat) from Ohio
Letter to Congress June 2010.
[I’m not so sure I like the idea of exempting all firearms from the claims of creditors. I could see some dollar value exemption, like $10K in guns and ammo but not an unlimited number of firearms or dollar value. If someone owed me $100K I would be pretty upset if the debtor could tell the judge the only thing he owned was just this one gun and the judge was required to let the guy keep it rather than pay his debt to me.

On the other hand it’s nice to see politicians (especially Democrats) thinking of ways to curry favor with gun owners. And of course putting Josh Sugarmann at risk of a aneurysm gets a few bonus points from me too.–Joe]


3 thoughts on “Quote of the day–John Boccieri

  1. The bill would expand the Federal Bankruptcy exemptions to include one firearm valued at no more than $1,500. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.5827:

    The states get to choose whether to make the Federal exemptions available to their citizens even though Bankruptcy is a Federal matter. In the states where the Federal exemptions are not available to the debtor he or she has to use the state’s list of exemptions. In the states where the Federal exemptions are available the debtor has the choice to use either the Federal or State exemptions. This bill would not effect debtors in states that do not make the Federal exemptions available or debtors who choose to use the state law exemptions because they are otherwise more generous in a certain category.

    I’m familiar with a couple of state’s exemptions and in those states firearms (up to a certain value), are already included as a separate category. I think these exemptions are probably required by strong state constitution RKBA provisions; otherwise the state would be effectively disarming the citizen.

    See Section 11-605(8), Idaho Code:

    “An individual is entitled to exemption of one (1) firearm valued at seven hundred fifty dollars ($750), or less.”

    Oregon lets the debtor keep a pistol and a long gun aggregate value $1,000 or less. See: Or. Rev. Stat. § 18.362

    It is an open question, of course, whether McDonald requires the states to recognize a separate exemption for firearms.

  2. Why shouldn’t “computer equipment” or my library of rare books be excluded under the 1st Amendment?

    I don’t like where this law is heading. Most firearms are already exempt.

  3. I certainly agree that a dollar amount is needed (automatically adjusted for inflation ideally). Sure, I don’t want to see someone lose their Mossberg 500, their Stevens 30-06 hunting rifle that they use to fill the freezer, and their Glock.

    But at the same time if you have a Super Deluxe Custom Gold Plated Colt .45, and a $3000 hunting rifle, and a Benelli Duckmaster Superdeluxe shotgun… I’d feel awful irritated as a creditor if those items were protected.

Comments are closed.