[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 113 (Thursday, July 29, 2010)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1468-E1469]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            PROTECTING GUN OWNERS IN BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 2010

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JAMES P. MORAN

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 29, 2010

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act of 2010.
  This legislation, as it was drafted and brought to this floor, would 
exempt one firearm of any value or a combination of firearms not to 
exceed $1,500 from creditors' claims during bankruptcy proceedings. 
That's right--this bill would allow an unlimited exemption for a single 
firearm. Despite claims from supporters that this bill is intended to 
protect firearms used primarily for personal, family, or household use, 
there is absolutely no reference to this requirement in the bill.
  This means someone could claim an exemption for an antique firearm 
worth tens of thousands of dollars. In essence, Congress is 
incentivizing individuals to game the system by purchasing an expensive 
firearm prior to filing for bankruptcy. While I understand language 
will be added to correct this glaring loophole, this just goes to show 
why this bill should have been vetted first by the Judiciary Committee.
  In addition, supporters of this bill claim that it is a Second 
Amendment issue and that it will allow individuals going through 
bankruptcy to continue to protect their households. While I sympathize 
with those facing bankruptcy, the Second Amendment protects the right 
to bear arms. It is not intended to protect an individual's property 
from legitimate claims during bankruptcy anymore than the First 
Amendment protects an author's novels or other works during those same 
proceedings.
  Finally, this bill was introduced 5 days ago and has a total of 21 
cosponsors. Yet, here it is on the suspension calendar--a process that 
is supposed to be reserved for non-controversial legislation, 
particularly when that legislation has evaded the normal Committee 
process. By contrast, the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act, a bill 
introduced 446 days ago and supported by 109 cosponsors, languishes in 
committee. Closing that loophole, which we know puts guns into the 
hands of criminals and the mentally ill, is something worthy of this 
Chamber's attention. Instead, we are spending floor time on this.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this flawed and unnecessary 
bill.

[[Page E1469]]



                          ____________________