Apr 15, 2011 4 min read

If you wanted to pick a dumb move by Congress, you’d have plenty of options to choose from.

To make it easier on yourself, you could even break it down into degrees: deciding between just-plain-everyday dumb and the are-you-kidding-me? dumb. This week we get the latest lameness of the former variety – and it comes from our very own U.S. Rep. Mark Critz, D-Johnstown.

Critz, who  represents Pennsylvania’s 12th District, which includes all of Greene County and parts of Fayette and Washington counties, introduced a bit of bipartisan legislation on Wednesday to allow individuals to be able to “retain up to $3,000 worth of personal firearms during bankruptcy proceedings.”

This “important” legislation, as Critz and his co-sponsor Tim Griffin (R-Ark.) called it in a press release, would seek to amend federal bankruptcy law to make guns a permissible exception and therefore free from debtors and repo men.

Wait, what? Leaving alone the question of whether anyone needs $3,000 worth of guns in the first place, why should they be allowed to keep them in bankruptcy?

Take it away, Griffin: “At this time of economic uncertainty, we need to protect the rights of people to protect themselves,” said the Republican from Little Rock, Ark., in a press release. “This bipartisan legislation would ensure that those who find themselves in dire economic circumstances don’t have to give up their ability to defend their family from home invasion or lose a piece of their family heritage.”

No, really. April Fools was a few weeks back.

So, if you’re anything like me, you may be asking yourself a few questions at this point:

Why would someone need $3,000 worth of guns to protect their home? Are these people planning to repel a small army? (And if they’re in bankruptcy, what are criminals going to break in and steal? Other than the $3,000 worth of guns, I guess.) If safety is the goal, why not exempt $3,000 worth of door locks?

Or if it’s about “family heritage,” why should guns be any different than any other property under bankruptcy? What if my piece of “family heritage” is a grandfather clock or a classic car? Why can’t that be exempt to? (I have no guns; can I keep my laptop instead?)

Or you might have pondered why would Critz and Griffin want to ensure there are firearms in homes that are experiencing very real stress and turmoil? Do they not realize that keeping guns in such houses makes suicides and murder suicides a lot easier? The last thing someone needs when they’re at the end of their rope is $3,000 worth of guns. (Of course, the NRA, which supports the bill, disagrees. But then again, the NRA has never let logic get in their way.)

Of course, if you’re the questioning type, you might just have gotten to the point and asked: are you kidding me?

Sadly, I’m not. I won’t begin to guess at Griffin’s reasoning, but Critz’s smacks of blatant political gamesmanship. He’s jumping at the chance to burgeon his “not-liberal” credentials by soaking up some gun rights love.

Skeptical? Take a gander at Critz’s quote in the press release announcing the bill: “As a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, I believe all people, including those in bankruptcy, have a constitutional right to purchase and retain firearms,” said Critz.

Subtle, Critz, real subtle. I always find it convincing when people have to come out and tell me that they’re “strong supporters” of something.

And let’s not even begin to discuss how his point about constitutional rights to purchase and retain firearms leaves out the part about actually paying for them. (You know, since that’s why this hypothetical person is in bankruptcy in the first place.)

Amazingly, this is Congress’ second attempt to pass this legislation. A near identical bill put forth in June 2010 passed the House, only to see no action in the Senate. It could be because the bill is dumb – you don’t need $3,000 worth of guns if you’re in bankruptcy – or it could be because it’s also pointless.

That was the determination of Adam Levitin, a professor of law at Georgetown University with degrees from Harvard and Columbia (in other words, more versed in bankruptcy law than I). Of the 2010 version, Levitin said the proposed legislation was “pretty useless, even if you think it’s a good idea” since “expanding the potential exemptions doesn’t make any difference; it is just political show.”

Not only is the idea dumb, so is the execution.

So why are Critz and Griffin introducing it? To slightly alter a quote from a great American thinker: Because it’s Congress, and dumb is as dumb does.

If you’d like to keep $3,000 worth of copies of this column, Brandon Szuminsky can be reached at bszuminsky@heraldstandard.com.