Debtor also filed a declaration that he is fond of hunting (for       4 ABR 293  putting food on the table), and uses firearms to protect his family. He also takes his sons out to hunt as a learning experience.

He used some of the items, such as a 55,000 BTU heater and some carpentry tools, to construct a cabin. He uses some hand tools to work on his automobile.

AS 09.38.020(a) provides:


(a) An individual is entitled to an exemption in property not to exceed an aggregate value of $3,000 chosen by the individual from the following categories of property:

(1) household goods and wearing apparel reasonably necessary for one household;

(2) if reasonably held for the personal use of the individual or a dependent, books and musical instruments; and

(3) family portraits and heirlooms of particular sentimental value to the individual.

In Alaska, exemption laws are remedial in character and liberally construed. Gutterman v. First National Bank of Anchorage, 597 P2d 969, 972 (AK 1979).

There is a division in the courts about whether a firearm is exempt as a household good under state law or 11 USC § 522(d)(3), or against which a non-possessory lien in household goods can be avoided under 11 USC § 522(f)(2)(B)(I).

I have not found any appellate court cases from the 9th Circuit. Excluding cases which specifically allow a firearm, such as In re Biancavilla, 173 BR 930 (BankFRCVCT r D ID 1994). I have only found two other cases from the 9th Circuit discussing whether firearms are household goods in my brief review. In re Thornton, 91 BR 913 (Bankr CD Cal 1988) a debtor's attempted avoidance of a creditor's lien involved an antique gun worth $4,500, and is not representative. The court found that it was not a household good. In re Eveland, 87 BR 117, 121 (Bankr ED Cal 1988) found that a gun was not necessary for debtor's standard of living. A nonpossessory lien could not be avoided because it was not household goods under § 522(f)(2)(A), although it might qualify as a tool of the trade for a law enforcement officer under § 522(f)(2)(B).

The only circuit case that I found, which the parties have cited to me as In re McGreevy, 955 F2d 957, 959 (4th Cir 1992), found that (1) "household goods" within the meaning of the lien avoidance provision are those items of personal property typically found in or around home and used by debtor or his dependents to support and facilitate day-to-day living within the home, and (2) firearms were not "household goods" subject to lien avoidance under 11 USC § 522(f)(2)(A). There, the rifle was not necessary around the home, which was in an apartment complex of 25 to 30 units, even if it was used away from the home for hunting purposes. The court, however, rejected a per se rule. McGreevy at 962.

The cases from other jurisdictions are split. There are a dozen or more other cases where, probably depending on the inclination of the particular judge, there was a determination of exemption or non-exemption. One of the more recent cases is In re French, 177 BR 568, 574 (Bankr ED Tenn 1995) (disallowing the exemption because a shotgun was not normally an adjunct to "today's average home"), which held that a court should not apply per se analysis, but take it on a case-by-case basis. See, also, In re Raines, 170 BR 187 (ND Ga 1994) (.357 Magnum used for protection is a household good); In re Barnes, 117 BR 842, 847 (Bankr D Md 1990) ("Firearms are sporting goods normally used outside and away from the home. They are not household goods because they are not reasonably necessary for the day-to-day existence of people in the context of their homes." -- cites many cases that firearms are not household goods); In re McCain, 114 BR 652, 653 (Bankr ED Mo 1990) (firearms are household goods, although not necessary to debtor's new start, so not avoidable); In re Gonshorowski, 110 BR 51 (Bankr ND Ala 1990) (a revolver kept for defense is a household good; lien avoided under § 522(f)(2)(A)); In re Barrick, 95 BR 310, 313 (Bankr MD Pa 1989) (not household goods); In re Greenlee, 61 BR 257 (Bankr D Colo 1986) (not a household good, but "recreational items," even if used for hunting); In re Stroman, 78 BR 785, 786 (Bankr D SC 1987) (magnum pistol is not a household good; not reasonably necessary to give a comfortable existence).

Judge MacDonald has previously allowed the exemption of one gun in In re George F. Meyeres, aka Bud S. Meyeres, Case No. F93-00735-DMD (the U.S. Trustee's objections to a .306 Winchester and a .22 Winchester were       4 ABR 295  sustained, but debtor was able to keep his shotgun which, Judge MacDonald told me, he "kept by his bed").

Although there is not a lot of evidence, I think there is justification for allowing the debtor to keep a shotgun in this case. He is an outdoors person, and this appears to be used in his household as part of his life style and for protection. In that sense it is "necessary."

The other guns, the target rifle and Biathlon rifle are of a sporting nature and the exemption as to them will be denied. See, In re Barnes and In reFRCVCTa
Greenlee, cited above.

I also ruled at the hearing that the debtor's exemption in the hockey gear is denied. The exemption is granted as to all the tools listed.

DATED: March 14, 1996

HERBERT A. ROSS
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge