Terry Nichols Wants FBI To Release Guns

[wmenorr67]

http://www.newson6.com/story/29555973/terry-nichols-wants-guns-seized-by-fbi-given-to-ex-wife

FBI admits to having 13 of his guns.  He claims they had nothing to do with the bombing and wants the FBI to release them to his ex-wife since he owes back child support.  I don't see a problem with this if there isn't anything preventing her from owning them.  If there is something then next best thing is that the FBI sells them at auction with the proceeds to the wife to pay the support.  (FAT CHANCE THAT HAPPENS)

[cordex]

I think the Henderson Supreme Court case back in May already decided this.  He should be able to have the gov't transfer them to a third party so long as the third party is allowed to own them.

[HankB]

. . . he owes back child support.

Considering that he was sentenced to life in prison without parole for his part in the murder of 163 people (including a day care center full of little children), I'd say his earning potential - and the likelihood of his ever paying off the back child support - is quite low. (Since the guns are allegedly wanted by him to settle some part of his debt, I wonder if lawyers are actually dunning him for payment?)

[Firethorn]

What are the odds that after all that time in FBI hands they're in any condition to be used or sold for anything other than scrap/interest pieces?

[vaskidmark]

Usually, a court will entertain a petition for an order to liquidate assets that could go towards reducing child support arrears.

But I'm wondering what child there is that, 20 years later, is still in need of child support.  Usually the obligation to provide support ends when the child turns 18; continuing support is usually reserved for those with significant handicaps.

Methinks there is something else going on.

stay safe.

[Firethorn]

But I'm wondering what child there is that, 20 years later, is still in need of child support.  Usually the obligation to provide support ends when the child turns 18; continuing support is usually reserved for those with significant handicaps.

Not really.  Note that he says that he owes BACK child support, ie debt accrued from failure to pay as ordered(not that he had the means).  Liability from failure to pay child support extends beyond the child turning 18 - you can't stop paying when the kid's 17 while knowing that suing you for not paying it would extend until the kid's well past 18.

That being said, you can be on the hook today until 22 or so if the offspring goes to college.

[vaskidmark]

Agreed, but a) as of 20 years ago his ability to pay arrears was severely limited if not completely terminated and b) it all depends on where the arrearage payments are going to be directed.

If the child in question received welfare assistance the money goes back to the state which has a history of pretty much not caring about recouping payments until the debtor regains the ability to make payments.  In this case it is not the state seeking to liquidate an asset to satisfy an arrearage.

If the state is not seeking to recoup arrearages who is?  The mother of the child would be better served by writing off the arrearage as an noncollectable debt.  But even if she wants to deal with the tax implications of receiving the arrearage now that the child is no longer in need of support why is she not petitioning for liquidation of the assets?

Whether or not the child is eligible for support until age 22, we are talking about arrearages, not current or future payments.

Me still thinks there is something else going on.

stay safe.

[cordex]

Me still thinks there is something else going on.

Could be, or it could just be that he (or his ex) just realized this was an option because of the Supreme Court decision a few months ago.

[BlueStarLizzard]

My mother is still getting back child support (or at least she was)

I'm 31.

The money is owed to the person raising the child, not the child. If you didn't pay when you were supposed to, it doesn't matter how old the child is, you still owe that money.

I, for one, am all for the judge granting this and I don't appreciate the comments made by the people on the article. He may be an evil bastard, but his ex wife and children are not the criminals here and the guns (or amount the guns are worth) should go to the ex wife.

[vaskidmark]

BSL -

I agree with you, but ....

As previously asked above.

Even if things had to wait for the recent SCOTUS ruling, why is Mrs. Nichols not at the least joining in the motion?

I'll let the more savvy tax folks weigh in on the consequences of taking the cash as opposed to writing off the debt.

stay safe.

[Angel Eyes]

What are the odds that after all that time in FBI hands they're in any condition to be used or sold for anything other than scrap/interest pieces?

. . . assuming that the Feds can even find them.

[Scout26]

At the federal level Child support is not subject to income tax.   Nor is it deductible.   Maintenance/Alimony is subject to income tax and is deductible.

States vary on their treatments of the latter, but I don't know of any state that taxes the former, YMMV.

Again their may be interest in the guns as collectors items (yes, there are macabre  folks out there with lots of money.)
But again, it depends on condition and what they are.