Seattle Council Bill Number: 115454

—– Original Message —–

From: <address deleted>
To: <addresses deleted>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 8:51 AM
Subject: Council Bill Number: 115454
Dear Council Persons
This bill seems to have some serious flaws. While I am happy to hear that we intend to address a serious problem, I don’t think that this is the right way to go about it. It sets disturbing precedence, and relies on the establishment of intent for enforcement, which is yucky. We should prosecute on the facts, not on what we think the bad guy was thinking.
Here are some of the technical issues with the bill:
1) The catch-all language in the first section is ridiculously broad. It will cover hammers, screw drivers – just about anything. It could even include one of those handy tools many people carry to escape from cars – they have tips for breaking windows, and are quite specifically intended to be used for that. Many people carry tools like "leathermen" multi-tools, and these would quite clearly fall under this law.
2) The bill defines Trial Keys, and then provides to a carve-out for people who might need them. However it provides no such carve out for any other device – eg slim jims. From my reading of the law, it will become illegal for anyone to possess a slim jim, no matter who they are.
3) It doesn’t define "bona fide" locksmith.
4) It limits possesion of Trial Keys to "licensed auto dealers" – not sure if this is too limited. Who can be a "licensed auto dealer"?
5) What about car services like AAA? They are neither locksmiths, nor licensed auto dealers.
Thank you for your time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s