Talk:Legal issues

==

Use this page to discuss any legal issues relating to lockpicking, safecracking, key bumping, and associated topics.

--Datagram 15:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

California Legality of Sales/Transfers Link
I was clicking through to read about legal requirements for sale of locksmithing tools and found the Sale/Transfer link to be incorrect.

It should be pointing to this page. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=466-469

I attempted to update the link but when I pressed the edit button (with this URL http://www.lockwiki.com/index.php?title=Legal_issues&action=edit&section=7) though it didn't show me any place to edit the information for California.

If this is the incorrect URL to update the USChart table I apologize for missing it. If it is correct could someone update it or grant me permission to edit the table. I would like to keep this page up to date since it is a very useful resource.

Hi LeitoM,

The link you provided is the same thing as what is currently linked, only the one currently there splits the sections into multiple links. The charts are "translcuded" which means that they are separate pages embedded into the legal page. This makes it so we can edit the legal page without it becoming huge. When you click edit for the legal issues page you can scroll to the bottom to see "Templates used on this page" which has links to the US and World chart pages which should be edited to change the chart info.

Leave a message here or on my user talk page if you need any help.

Thanks, Datagram 17:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Kansas Legality
Answering questions at TOOOL defcon I was stumped by one about Kansas. Lockwiki (my goto) states that they're illegal and that they're a certification requirement, but I can't find anything in the state statutes to support that. The link is dead (appeared to be a bill, not to the state code). Other sites like http://www.lockpickguide.com/legalityoflockpicks.html conclude no statute on point. I would suggest reevaluating the current status unless there's some specific information I'm missing. --70.108.43.192 16:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

District of Columbia Legality
According District of Columbia Official Code, DC ST § 22-2501, it would not appear to be prima facie:

No person shall have in his or her possession in the District any instrument, tool, or implement for picking locks or pockets, with the intent to use such instrument, tool, or implement to commit a crime. Whoever violates this section shall be imprisoned for not more than 180 days and may be fined not more than $1,000, unless the violation occurs after he or she has been convicted in the District of a violation of this section or of a felony, either in the District or another jurisdiction, in which case he or she shall be imprisoned for not less than one year nor more than 5 years.

--96.26.93.159 22:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

New York State Requirements
So far as I can tell, New York State does not require the licensing of locksmiths, but New York City does.

Reference 2 on the line for New York takes you to the page in the NYC code that covers locksmith licenses, not to a page that applies to the State as a whole. Also, the ALOA website doesn't list New York as a state that requires licenses.

David 22:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey David, info has been changed. You can change this stuff yourself in the future if you prefer, just make sure to cite references as much as possible.

Datagram 22:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Virginia Legality
The Virginia Court of Appeals would seem to disagree with the common perception that the mere posession of lockpicking tools is illegal. See http://caselaw.findlaw.com/va-court-of-appeals/1220044.html ("The mere possession of burglarious tools is not a crime under the statute.   It is possession with intent to use them to commit a crime [that is criminal].")

Hi Anon, That case is interesting but it doesn't mention lockpicking tools specifically. All tools mentioned are common hand tools used for destructive entry. It's nice to know that the court of appeals feels this way but their law still explicity states possession is prima facie. Until that changes I'm going to leave their entry as-is.

Datagram 20:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)