November 24, 2013, 02:13 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2010
Posts: 1,536
|
Guns and bankruptcy
First a couple if things
1) If this is a off topic thread I apologize and feel free to lock it 2) I am not in danger or in need of filing bankruptcy, I am honestly just curious. How does bankruptcy affect gun collections? Do you lose your guns?
__________________
Find out just how tall I am By jumping in the middle of a river |
November 24, 2013, 08:11 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 17, 2007
Location: Western NY
Posts: 925
|
Any asset, if known about, can be used to sell when going through bankruptcy.
__________________
See Ya! Last edited by Frank Ettin; November 24, 2013 at 01:09 PM. Reason: delete encouragement of inproper conduct |
November 24, 2013, 08:26 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 20, 2007
Location: Rainbow City, Alabama
Posts: 7,167
|
Steve is right, they are an asset. However being an asset of "personal property" - i.e. the same class class as clothing and furniture, many states have laws that specifically protect personal property assets in a bankrupcy proceeding. You would have to research your particular state bankrupcy laws to determine if firearms get lumped in with other excludable personal property and are excludable from the asset listing or if they are lumped in with other property (like investment property, collectables, etc) which is siezeable.
|
November 24, 2013, 10:10 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 19, 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 811
|
What Doyle said. Plus, it can also depend on which bankruptcy chapter you file under. The two most common personal bankruptcy chapters are 7 and 13. 7 is liquidating the estate and losing all non-exempt assets. 13 is reorganizing the estate and making future payments through a plan, which does not typically involve an involuntarily asset sale.
|
November 24, 2013, 10:35 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 23, 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,968
|
guns like the furniture in your house can be taken away in a bankruptcy hearing. if it can be sold at a sheriff's auction to cover debt it will be.
|
November 24, 2013, 11:28 AM | #6 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
ETA: Oops! I went back and did a little research. Exemptions for the purposes of the federal bankruptcy laws may be determined by state law. This illustrates the importance of doing some research on occasion.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper Last edited by Frank Ettin; November 24, 2013 at 01:52 PM. Reason: correct typo |
|
November 24, 2013, 01:15 PM | #7 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Note well:
It is illegal for someone who is petitioning for relief under the bankruptcy laws to hide or transfer assets to place them outside the reach of creditors or the bankruptcy court. Anyone who in any way suggests or hints at doing so will at least receive an infraction.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
November 24, 2013, 01:57 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2010
Posts: 1,536
|
Thanks guys, interesting stuff. I was watching a movie last night where someone was going through a bankruptcy and the question popped in mind. I deffinately don't want anyone suggesting anything illigal
|
November 24, 2013, 04:01 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 243
|
And if I recall correctly, I did see one who spent time in prison due to having not listed all his assets.
So yes, they may find out that you had hidden assets. The federal rules used to allow federal or state exemptions. Provided for by state law. Some states have a 'wild card' exemption that allows any property up to a certain amount to be exempt. At one time Florida had a homestead exemption with no limit. It was notoriously abused by a high profile individual who moved to Florida, purchased a $4 million dollar house, established his residency, and declared bankruptcy. The law was changed. In California the homestead exemption was $75,000, or $150,000 for a married couple. That wouldn't give you much of a house here. dc |
November 24, 2013, 05:03 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,243
|
Knew some people in Florida that went through bankruptcy before the laws were reformed at the federal level. They only had to give up the things that were securing the loans. They were allowed to reaffirm the debt on the house and a car. Another car that was paid for they had to give up or pay the value of it. Credit card debt only resulted in loss of property if the card company sent someone to the hearing to ask for the return of charged property. The only ones that did was Sears. Sears would take their stuff back no matter what, even if it was junk. Then throw away the junk. The property exemption allowed them to keep the rest.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time. No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it. |
November 24, 2013, 05:19 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 23, 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,968
|
different chapters of bankruptcy.
next a few guns are not assets, they wont bring enough to settle most debt. the ones who get in trouble are the ones with undeclared Rembrandts and gold coins..... |
November 24, 2013, 07:18 PM | #12 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
Quote:
|
|
November 24, 2013, 09:26 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 243
|
Exempt assets are assets that are exempt from sale to satisfy debts.
Such as jewelry and other collections up to the allowable amount of value for the exemption. In the 1870s California's codes were written to include these exemptions. One of them was for the workman's tools of his trade. He was to be allowed to keep the tools of his trade. And his clothes? It makes sense, doesn't it? Unless you want to give him a welfare check. dc |
November 25, 2013, 10:57 AM | #14 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
Quote:
|
|
November 26, 2013, 07:07 PM | #15 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
|
I'm willing to bet the judge or whomever would allow some guns to be kept for the obvious reasons, but a collection implies that there is excess beyond the need for hunting, defense, target shooting hobby, etc. I wouldn't expect to be able to keep that excess, and a thoughtful gun collector could produce more cash to satisfy his debts by selling each gun individually, rather than as a collection or by the Sheriff.
|
November 26, 2013, 07:17 PM | #16 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
November 26, 2013, 07:41 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 243
|
I don't have the exemptions in front of me. Once upon a time when I did there was an exemption for collections, such as stamp collections, etc., as well as jewlery, etc., as what a woman would have as part of her usual possessions.
Once you state and file the exemption, the trustee has no power over it. I suppose the trustee or a credit might bring a proceeding to have the judge determine the value of the items, or otherwise question the legitimacy of it. Let me check for a paragraph. 704.020. (a) Household furnishings, appliances, provisions, wearing apparel, and other personal effects are exempt in the following cases: (1) If ordinarily and reasonably necessary to, and personally used or procured for use by, the judgment debtor and members of the judgment debtor's family at the judgment debtor's principal place of residence. Even that dim-witted v p guy knows a shotgun is an ordinary household possession. A self defense hand-gun. Someone else mentioned a security guards gun, or guns, a tool of the trade. 704.040. Jewelry, heirlooms, and works of art are exempt to the extent that the aggregate equity therein does not exceed six thousand seventy-five dollars ($6,075). Grandads valuable rifle, pistol. Private pension plan. I suppose one could make a claim that their gun collection was part of a private retirement plan, to become a gunsmith as a retirement plan. All you need is that one judge who has planned to retire and use his tools to work on cars or motorcycles the rest of his life as his retirement to hear your case. He will rubber stamp your plan. These are just some of one of the California exemption plans. There may be other ideas that would work. The worst case scenario is that the judge will say no, some of these guns must be sold. Now, this is NOT advice. If you have a $100,000 or $200,000 gun collection, you may want to liquidate some of it BEFORE YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT BANKRUPTCY. Your intent is most important there. Oh, and I give no advice whatsoever here. dc |
November 26, 2013, 08:35 PM | #18 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
November 26, 2013, 11:24 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: The Old Dominion
Posts: 1,521
|
Well, Mr. Ettin, since David13 did provide "before you even think about bankruptcy," (emphasis added) perhaps the suggestion was an innocent one.
But point taken. This is an area that fascinates me. This whole vanishing of debts confounds me, especially at the corporate level. But that's for a different forum altogether.
__________________
"...A humble and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Ps. li "When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." —Frederic Bastiat Last edited by Mr. James; November 26, 2013 at 11:30 PM. |
November 26, 2013, 11:54 PM | #20 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
But as you pointed out, the philosophical dimensions of the notion of giving a debtor a fresh start is outside the scope of this forum.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||
November 29, 2013, 09:49 AM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
Federal bankruptcy law allows a state to "opt out" of the federal schedule of exemptions and have state law exemptions apply in bankruptcy. The idea back in the 70s was to get states to think about updating their laws because many were woefully out of date and applied outside the bankruptcy context. If a state has opted out (and many have) then the state exemption laws must be applied in federal court. IIRC, that is one advantage of living in Florida and Texas --- those states have an unlimited homestead exemption (no limit on the value of the home exempt from collection unless waived which is the case in mortgages).
|
November 29, 2013, 11:52 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
There is nothing unethical or contrary to bankruptcy code in engaging in pre-petition planning. This sort of planning can help one avoid pre-petition actions that will be voided as transfers in fraud of creditors or preferences. Planning to have enough cash to pay bankruptcy counsel is also not a trivial matter.
For example, if you live in a state in which there is an exemption for a personal vehicle, but you do not have a reliable vehicle and you will be poorly positioned to purchase a vehicle after you have filed a bankruptcy petition, your bankruptcy counsel may advise you to use your resources to obtain a reliable vehicle prior to filing your petition. Selling your assets to pay debts prior to filing your bankruptcy petition has pitfalls. If you only pay some of your debts, you may invite a preference claim from the trustee. If you sell your assets to raise funds that are subsequently used to satisfy your debts ratably, i.e. paying all of your creditors 45% of the amount you owe them, you may be liable for any misrepresentations to your creditors, and you are very likely to incur federal income tax liability on the amount you did not pay. None of the above is legal advice. Instead, it is an exhortation to use care. As is so often the case, the real answer is to consult an attorney in your own state. Where the matter is bankruptcy, it is prudent to consult someone who regularly practices in that area.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; November 29, 2013 at 12:48 PM. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|