[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 111 (Tuesday, July 27, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H6137-H6139]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROTECTING GUN OWNERS IN BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 2010
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 5827) to amend title 11 of the United States Code
to include firearms in the types of property allowable under the
alternative provision for exempting property from the estate, as
amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 5827
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Gun Owners in
Bankruptcy Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. EXEMPTIONS.
Section 522 of title 11, the United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subsection (d) by adding at the end the following:
``(13) The debtor's aggregate interest, not to exceed
$3,000 in value, in a single rifle, shotgun, or pistol, or
any combination thereof.'', and
(2) in subsection (f)(4)(A)--
(A) in clause (xiv) by striking ``and'' at the end,
(B) in clause (xv) by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and'', and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(xvi) The debtor's aggregate interest, not to exceed
$3,000 in value, in a single rifle, shotgun, or pistol, or
any combination thereof.''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.
(a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by this
Act shall apply only with respect to cases commenced under
title 11 of the United States Code on or after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E.
Lungren) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
General Leave
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield all of the time to the
sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri), and ask
unanimous consent that he be allowed to control the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOCCIERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, while Congress works to pull our Nation out of this
economic recession, many people across our great country continue to
struggle with depleted savings and financial hardship, but those
financial challenges should not affect a person's individual
constitutional rights and their ability to protect their family. That
is why I stand here today in strong support of H.R. 5827, Protecting
Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act. My legislation ensures families hit hard
by the recent economic downturn in the recession and forced to file
bankruptcy do not hand over their right to protection or their right to
possess a firearm.
H.R. 5827 provides an exemption in the Federal Bankruptcy Code for
personal firearms. Since 2005, debtors who file bankruptcy could retain
household goods such as radios, TVs, VCRs and linens, but not firearms.
Currently, bankruptcy for gun owners not only means the seizure of
family heirlooms, but perhaps the inability for them to protect their
own family. This means that families who file bankruptcy are left
without this constitutionally provided right.
H.R. 5827 ensures a person who files for bankruptcy will not lose a
treasured family heirloom or sporting equipment passed down from one
generation to the next.
I happen to have a weapon that was passed down that my grandfather
used in the Second World War, an M1 Carbine rifle that is a family
heirloom. And as a small arms expert in the United States Air Force and
a hunter in Ohio, I know that firearms are not just mere possessions
but family heirlooms as well.
My fellow sportsmen in Ohio want to see the protection of their
constitutionally protected rights. The Protecting Gun Owners in
Bankruptcy Act will ensure that families can keep these prized
possessions and continue to pass them on for generations to come.
The right protected by the Second Amendment is deeply rooted in our
Nation's history and tradition. One needs to look no further than the
woods of Ohio during autumn to know that this is true.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support
of H.R. 5827 and yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the Protecting Gun Owners in
Bankruptcy Act of 2010 because the bill does recognize that an
individual's Second Amendment right to lawful self-defense is not
suspended during periods of financial hardship.
The Second Amendment confirms the right of every American to keep and
bear arms in self-defense. Neither Federal nor any State legislature is
permitted to enact a law infringing on this most basic right. In 2008,
the Supreme Court confirmed in its Heller decision that ``There seems
to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second
Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.''
This fundamental right to defend oneself and one's family with lawful
and responsible gun ownership was reinforced just this year when, in
McDonald, the court prohibited State and local legislatures from
passing laws infringing on an individual's Second Amendment rights.
Following passage of this bill, gun owners will be protected against
overreaching legislatures but also from the harsh realities of the
current economic crisis. Americans need not be reminded that our Nation
is still mired in some of the worst economic conditions since the Great
Depression. In my home State of California, bankruptcy filings in the
first quarter of 2010 have increased approximately 41 percent over the
first quarter of 2009.
The bill we're considering today, recognizing that constitutional
rights do not halt in the face of financial difficulty, creates a new
Federal exemption that places a personal firearm beyond the reach of
creditors and allows the debtor to avoid liens on the firearm if they
would otherwise prohibit him from taking the new exemption.
The Bankruptcy Code already exempts a variety of other basic items
like linens and household goods that a debtor needs during a bankruptcy
case to live a modest life and reorganize his or her financial affairs.
The bill confirms that a debtor can maintain his or her own safety
while the bankruptcy case is pending. The Federal bankruptcy exemption
we are creating today is consistent with the principles embodied in the
Second Amendment.
I would urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOCCIERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from
New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I thank my colleague.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5827. I fail to see
why we need to protect guns in a bankruptcy proceeding.
This bill had no hearings. It was not marked up. It only had 21
cosponsors. Suspension bills should be reserved for noncontroversial
items. I know for a fact anywhere from 80 to 100 of our Members will be
voting against this. This bill should have gone through regular order.
Bankruptcy is a tough time for everybody. I sympathize greatly with
individuals and families who are facing a bankruptcy. But as part of a
bankruptcy proceeding, personal assets are turned over to bankruptcy
trustees. The trustees collect assets--cars, boats, and so on.
Bankruptcy calls for all of these items.
The process is designed to provide some protections for both the
bankrupt individual and the one who is owed money. Some items are
exempt as they
[[Page H6138]]
are essential to one's livelihood. We want someone in debt to be able
to have a fresh start, and therefore the law prevents some items from
being turned over.
Under Federal law, assets like homes, life insurance contracts,
health aids, and retirement funds are exempt, with reasonable limits.
What is special about guns, though, that they should have a special
carve-out? And the bill language would allow any single gun worth
thousands of dollars from being turned over.
Take, for example, an engraved shotgun costing tens of thousands of
dollars or a .50 caliber sniper rifle worth thousands of dollars. The
bankrupt individual would get to keep these guns. I understand the
committee has brought up revised text to correct this loophole, but
this is another reason why the bill should have gone through the normal
process of hearings and a markup.
Furthermore, studies have shown that the presence of guns in
households, especially those experiencing bankruptcy, enhances the risk
of suicide, or even worse, murder-suicide. According to the National
Violent Death Reporting System, more than 12 percent of firearm-related
murder-suicides and suicides were brought on by financial problems.
Stories of murder-suicides also include descriptions of financial
struggles.
In June 2010, a California couple died in a murder-suicide and their
3-year-old son was shot multiple times. The couple's 5-year-old son
told authorities that his father tried to shoot him, and then shot his
mother and brother. The family started missing house payments in early
2009 and had filed for bankruptcy in February 2010.
In February 2010, a Florida couple died of gunshot wounds in a
murder-suicide in what the St. Petersburg Times described as ``the end
of a long history of money troubles.'' They had filed for bankruptcy in
December 2004, listing more than $200,000 in debt. The couple's two
younger daughters hid in the bathroom during the shooting.
{time} 1930
In June 2009, a Florida family of four, including two children, was
shot to death in a murder-suicide. According to records filed in
Federal bankruptcy court, the parents were deeply in debt and had
struggled for 5 years to get out. The couple had filed chapter 13
bankruptcy in 2004, and the trustee had constructed a plan for the
couple to repay their debts, but they had failed to make the payments.
The case was converted to a chapter 7, which forced the couple to
liquidate their assets. A status hearing on the case was scheduled to
occur 2 months after the murder-suicide.
This bill wrongly puts guns before the health and safety of families.
As far as the Second Amendment rights, especially with the Keller
decision, people have the right to own guns--I am not disputing that.
Again, we are talking about bankruptcy, and we are also talking about
those who collect guns and who have many, many guns which are worth a
lot of money, and they should be paying that debt.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say at the very beginning that I understand
the sincerity and the strength of conviction of the gentlewoman from
New York on this issue. I think we have a disagreement with respect to
the times when firearms have been utilized to protect people from those
who would otherwise do them harm, and I think there are some other
reports that would suggest that that happens in far more instances than
those incidents which result in harm to an owner of a gun or to someone
in his or her family.
One of the things I just would like to put on the record is the
limited effect of today's amendment. When a debtor files for bankruptcy
relief, he or she must choose whether to claim the package of Federal
exemptions or the State exemptions available in the State of his or her
residence. Frequently, debtors claim State exemptions because they are
typically more generous to the debtors than are the Federal exemptions.
Moreover, under current bankruptcy law, States may opt out of the
Federal exemption scheme by passing a law that prohibits debtors in
those States from claiming the Federal exemptions. It is my
understanding that, to date, 34 States have enacted such opt-out
legislation, so debtors in only 16 States will ever be able to take
advantage of the new Federal firearms exemption we are considering
today. I do believe it is an appropriate piece of legislation, but one
should understand the limited nature of its application.
Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude by saying that, while I support the
creation of this exemption, the exemptions that Americans really want
right now are exemptions from unemployment and skyrocketing national
debt.
When I was home in my district this past weekend, my constituents
talked to me about the exemption from the crushing burden of higher
taxes that is poised to be unleashed upon them by the majority of this
House at the end of the year. I am bemused at times when I hear people
saying, Well, you Republicans won't pay for the tax cuts that are
already in existence, which is another way of saying that the
government has the first call on your money, and therefore, if we have
lower taxes than otherwise would be the case, somehow we have done
something wrong when, in fact, what will occur if we do not extend the
current rates of taxes on the Federal level will be, by some
calculations, the most massive, single tax increase in the history of
the United States.
That is very, very disappointing. It is sort of a play on the
language I used to hear on this floor from the majority when they used
to talk about tax expenditures. That's another way of talking about the
impact of ``tax cuts,'' meaning that somehow the Federal Government is
expending something when it allows you or I or any American to keep the
money in our pockets. That does indicate a philosophical difference
that does divide us, unfortunately, a philosophical difference which is
based on the premise that the money you earn is not yours, that the
money you earn is kept by you only at the sufferance of the government
and that if, in fact, the government by its generosity allows you to
keep that money there, that somehow you should genuflect in
supplication because you have done something to take money that justly
belongs to them.
So we are going to find out by the end of this year whether that
concept of whose money it is prevails or whether it is, in my judgment,
the proper viewpoint that the money you earn is, in your case, yours
first and that the government ought to only exact the smallest amount
of funds, that which is necessary to do those things that are required
by government function.
So I must lament that fact while I do continue to support this piece
of legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOCCIERI. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today, we are talking about what is in a family's
heirlooms, their possessions. I know the Republican would like to draw
this into a long debate about how we got into this mess, but I will
remind the gentleman that, on day one in 2009 when the 111th Congress
started, we were faced with unprecedented budget deficits that were
handed over to us from the previous administration--$3.5 trillion to be
exact--and an economy that was in free fall. We didn't know where it
was going to land. We were faced with two undeclared, unfunded wars,
unregulated greed on Wall Street, and a banking crisis that was
affecting so many small businesses.
So I will remind the gentleman that, while the policies that allowed
us to get into this ditch are not at the heart of this debate,
certainly, he is welcome to debate us, as we proceed further, on how we
got into this economic mess and on what measures we are taking to get
ourselves out of this.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my colleague from Ohio that the last
time we had a balanced budget on the Federal level was when we had a
Democrat in the White House and a Republican-controlled House and a
Republican-controlled Senate. Perhaps we ought to try that again after
November.
I support this legislation. I hope that there will be strong support
for it.
[[Page H6139]]
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BOCCIERI. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would remind the gentleman
as well on the other side that it was a Republican-controlled Congress
and a Republican President who allowed us to get $11 trillion in debt
when the last Democratic-controlled White House had a $5.6 trillion
projected surplus.
So, now that the facts are straight, I just want to be clear that
this legislation is about amending the Federal bankruptcy codes, which
have already been used to exempt furniture, musical instruments,
jewelry, and other household goods, to be allowed to exempt people's
heirlooms, their firearms, that have been passed on from generation to
generation.
I believe that the majority of Americans agrees with the Second
Amendment--the constitutional right that we have to bear arms. We have
continually upheld its validity for hundreds of years because, in many
cases, a family's guns are heirlooms, treasured pieces of family
history, which should not be subjected to financial hardship. I spoke
of my grandfather's M1 carbine that has been handed down to me now
through two successive generations.
One fact, one principle this country was founded upon was the ability
of our people to provide their own protection. Bearing this in mind and
this historical perspective, we respect the rights of gun owners as a
shared value we see amongst Democrats and some Republicans. It is not a
Republican or a Democratic issue but a foundational value of American
ideals. We must protect the rights guaranteed to us by our Founding
Fathers no matter what financial circumstances a citizen must face.
Mr. CRITZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5827, the
Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act of 2010. As a strong supporter
of the Second Amendment, I believe that owning a gun is a right and
that this right extends to all people, including those in bankruptcy.
After declaring bankruptcy, people are often denied their
Constitutionally protected rights by being forced to relinquish their
firearms. While other property, such as televisions, radios, china,
crockery, and appliances, is protected from repossession, firearms are
not. If owning a gun is a right, shouldn't guns be protected from
repossession just as other property is protected?
Right now, only 10 states have laws that protect gun owners from
firearm repossession during bankruptcy. Currently, the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania is not one of these 10, so I support this bill because I
believe that my constituents' Second Amendment rights, as well as the
Second Amendment rights of all Americans, should be protected during
bankruptcy.
This is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. BOCCIERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 5827, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________