What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Louisiana
I had someone ask me about a debtor examination, and what could be expected therefrom....basically, the query was geared toward what would and what would not be exempt from seizure by a creditor holding a judgment, most specifically guns.
Basically, I told him what I thought....that being that guns would be exempt property, this after reading LA RS 13:3881(A)(4)(c).
13: 3881. General exemptions from seizure
A. The following income or property of a debtor is exempt from seizure under any writ, mandate, or process whatsoever, except as otherwise herein provided:
(4)(c) His arms and military accoutrements.
Now, I thought that I was basically right...until I happened to look up at:
RS 13:3881(A)(2)(e)
A. The following income or property of a debtor is exempt from seizure under any writ, mandate, or process whatsoever, except as otherwise herein provided:
(2) That property necessary to the exercise of a trade, calling, or profession by which he earns his livelihood, which shall be limited to the following:
(e) One firearm with a maximum value of five hundred dollars.
Now, I would expect that the "arms and military accoutrements" actually was meant to refer to "military arms and military accoutrements" even though it was not specifically written that way, especially when you see the other specific firearm exemption mentioned as a subset of the larger "Tools of livelihood" exemption. And, of course, I would fully expect the creditor to argue as much.
Notwithstanding, it could also be argued that the exemption of "arms" covers all firearms, especially when one considers that the exemption listing doesn't say "military arms and military accoutrements", or even "military arms and accoutrements", either or both of which would have removed this ambiguity and clearly designated the "arms" to be military arms. But, it plainly says "His arms and military accoutrements".
Going on that alone, I would tend to think that any and all "arms" would be covered, simply because it seems to me that the law does not really favor any assumption, even one that may seem clear. It also seems that I recall reading somewhere that the Louisiana courts have held that the most liberal assignment of exemption is favored, toward the benefit of the debtor.
So, what's the verdict? Are a debtors guns safe from seizure by a judgment holding creditor in Louisiana, or not?
I had someone ask me about a debtor examination, and what could be expected therefrom....basically, the query was geared toward what would and what would not be exempt from seizure by a creditor holding a judgment, most specifically guns.
Basically, I told him what I thought....that being that guns would be exempt property, this after reading LA RS 13:3881(A)(4)(c).
13: 3881. General exemptions from seizure
A. The following income or property of a debtor is exempt from seizure under any writ, mandate, or process whatsoever, except as otherwise herein provided:
(4)(c) His arms and military accoutrements.
Now, I thought that I was basically right...until I happened to look up at:
RS 13:3881(A)(2)(e)
A. The following income or property of a debtor is exempt from seizure under any writ, mandate, or process whatsoever, except as otherwise herein provided:
(2) That property necessary to the exercise of a trade, calling, or profession by which he earns his livelihood, which shall be limited to the following:
(e) One firearm with a maximum value of five hundred dollars.
Now, I would expect that the "arms and military accoutrements" actually was meant to refer to "military arms and military accoutrements" even though it was not specifically written that way, especially when you see the other specific firearm exemption mentioned as a subset of the larger "Tools of livelihood" exemption. And, of course, I would fully expect the creditor to argue as much.
Notwithstanding, it could also be argued that the exemption of "arms" covers all firearms, especially when one considers that the exemption listing doesn't say "military arms and military accoutrements", or even "military arms and accoutrements", either or both of which would have removed this ambiguity and clearly designated the "arms" to be military arms. But, it plainly says "His arms and military accoutrements".
Going on that alone, I would tend to think that any and all "arms" would be covered, simply because it seems to me that the law does not really favor any assumption, even one that may seem clear. It also seems that I recall reading somewhere that the Louisiana courts have held that the most liberal assignment of exemption is favored, toward the benefit of the debtor.
So, what's the verdict? Are a debtors guns safe from seizure by a judgment holding creditor in Louisiana, or not?