Last Thursday saw a bill filed seeking to bar criminals and sex offenders from the locksmith industry. The bill before the House of Representatives seeks to regulate the industry more tightly. It was proposed that all should operate with a license. Also for all locksmiths to undergo a background check. The license to practice available from the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation. Along with a mandatory criminal background check. This will offer the public peace of mind and some reassurance. Public confidence will also be enhanced by a background check. This isn’t about placing barriers in front of an industry. The measures are no more than what teachers and other professionals are subject to.
The initiative has seen the light of day mainly due to a recent conviction of a locksmith. That being an already convicted sex offender in Palmetto State. Trading in North Myrtle Beach (as a locksmith) the individual was arrested earlier this year in relation to sex crimes against minors (4 years old). He voluntarily surrendered his license April 4th. However this was post the suspension of the license on March 18 by city officials. They cited revocation under a “moral turpitude” ordinance. In total there are 15 states that require a locksmith to be licensed. The new legislation will, no doubt, be amended as it moves through legislature. It is also expected to take in misrepresentation and fraud. If the bill is successful all locksmiths would carry an employee registration card. Further that the license number would have to be displayed in all advertising. The amount of the fee is yet to be determined.
These attempts at legislation are not the first. With previous proposals already put forward in 2006 and in 2011. However with heightened awareness of a background check process from gun ownership to the FCRA it is hopeful that this time round will see more support. In South Carolina regulations have been attempted for years. Legislation coming up short previously mainly due to funding. While no one wishes to speculate regulation this time round seems more likely. For further reference please follow this link.
DISCLAIMER: Please note the content within this blog/site is for informational, educational and entertainment purposes and should not be construed or perceived as professional or legal advice in respect of any of the subject matter. Any information you may rely on you do so at your own risk. The site owner/s will not be held responsible or liable for any damages from or related to your use of content, information and blog posts. The site owner/s take reasonable care to ensure that the information contained within this site is complete and correct but does not warrant this to be the case and accepts no liability for any errors, spelling mistakes or omissions. Any opinion or information in this site are put forth by the site owner/s on the basis of information obtained from sources believed to be reliable but not verified independently.