Locksmiths; licensure and registration. (SB1341)

Introduced By

Sen. Tommy Norment (R-Williamsburg)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law


Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation; Board for Contractors; regulation of locksmiths.  Transfers the regulation of locksmiths and locksmith services from the Department of Criminal Justice Services to the State Board for Contractors. The bill also limits the licensing and registration fee to $200 and extends the license and registration period to five years. Read the Bill »


Bill Has Failed


01/12/2011Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/12/11 11101436D
01/12/2011Referred to Committee on General Laws and Technology
01/26/2011Impact statement from DPB (SB1341)
02/02/2011Reported from General Laws and Technology with amendments (12-Y 2-N) (see vote tally)
02/04/2011Constitutional reading dispensed (38-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/07/2011Read second time
02/07/2011Reading of amendments waived
02/07/2011Committee amendments agreed to
02/07/2011Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute SB1341E
02/07/2011Printed as engrossed 11101436D-E
02/08/2011Read third time and passed Senate (37-Y 3-N) (see vote tally)
02/10/2011Placed on Calendar
02/10/2011Read first time
02/10/2011Referred to Committee on General Laws
02/11/2011Assigned GL sub: #4 Professions/Occupations and Administrative Process
02/11/2011Impact statement from DPB (SB1341E)
02/22/2011Left in General Laws


This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 1 clip in all, totaling 2 minutes.


stephen writes:

5 years is to long, a person could go in and out of prison, then still have time to pick a few locks.

Shari Kaymanesh writes:

1. DCJS has been a reliable organization that has been responsible in keeping people who will be dealing with people's private and sensitive information and property for many years.
2. Registering for the same thing with two locations is redundant and not practical.
3. Although the longer renewal time is appealing it is not a responsible solution. Too much can happen with an individual or company in 5 years. You are putting people's safety in jeopardy in an area that a lot of people are very sensitive about.

Mark Baldino writes:

To, Senator George Barker need to know the why? This bill negates all the work that has been done with DCJS and the locksmiths. DCJS infrastructure is set, includes back-ground checks, training and a more stringent enforcement system. This bill would ultimately let the locksmith scammers have all the permissions to practice their unfair practices with no regulation other than pay their $200. I have been working with Steven Bradley to solve this problem. Please do not support this Bill. Mark Baldino 703-906-3154

Steven Bradley
Deputy Director
Division of Communications
State Corporation Commission
Post Office Box 1197
Richmond, Virginia 23218
804 371-9674

Renae writes:

Still trying to figure out why the locksmiths whom started the ball rolling with the licensing originally didn't try to have the phone book companies regulated instead. That was one of the motivating factors I believe, hmmm...

Troy Miller writes:

DCJS has not lifted a hand to stop any scammers in Virginia. It does not matter if it is five days or five years. If someone wants to pick a lock, DCJS will not stop them. Lock picking is not the issue here. You can check with DCJS and you will see no record of any scammer being forced to stop working in Virginia since the law was signed in 2008. DCJS makes it difficult for anyone aspiring to be a locksmith from opening their own business by their restrictive rules. For those who support this, let me ask you where you got your start. The law we have now was not started to protect the public, but to weed out competition, good, bad, or otherwise. I guess the attitude is if the small guy can't be bought out, he can be legislated out. I have spoken to an individual supporting the law we have in place now and his stated goal was to rid the state of the part time locksmiths who have as much a right to do business as he does. I don't care what the poll above says, the vast majority of the locksmiths in Virginia do not support the law we have now. I am a law abiding and certified master locksmith who will abide by any law signed by the Governor, but the fact that a few locksmiths proclaiming to speak for all of us is a lie. I also know if the Bill becomes law as written it puts another financial burden on those who do access control. I still feel this could be changed in time. I have not seen anyone try to make any changes to the law we have now that helps the locksmith. In response to work done with DCJS, there has been none. Scammers are still free to do whatever they want. Just look in your local phone directories. If they started there, maybe my money would have been put to good use, but right now, I, along with others am paying approx$700.00 every two years to belong to another organization which does nothing for me, just like another national locksmith organization I belong to which wants locksmith licensing for the sake of licensing no matter how good or bad. After my rant, please support SB1341E. Maybe the majority of us will have a say this time. Oh by the way, if anyone wishes to debate this, you can reach me at tltas@aol.com.

Mark Baldino writes:

Troy It is true on the effectiveness DCJS has on their enforcement policies. But I have been assured numerous times the scammers are being addressed by DCJS in this complex problem. This is a very important issue to all commercial locksmiths who do not have an institutional job and depend on the public for the continuance of their livelihood. The fees you quoted are for both the corporation and the individual. The individual fees per year($100) are much less than which you stated.For a corporation not a burden at $350 if you are serious about serving the public.

Gary Ford writes:

To answer the statement that DCJS is not doing anything about the scammers is a lie. I have personally met with DCJS 6 different times in Richmond (taking a full day and 1.5 hour drive each way for me) over the last year to assist them with information to help fight the scammers. In addition to that I have attended many PSSAB board meetings in Richmond with DCJS in attendance and they are well aware of the scammer problems. DCJS has forwarded lots data to the AG's office to assist them with the scammers. Yes, the progress is a lot slower in a government agency, they have rules to follow. Me I would just call them pretending to need locksmith service and have them arrested and turned over to ICE, most are illegal. ________________________________________

Either the people that wrote the new Bill are clueless or have another agenda other than to save a couple of dollars per year. _______________________________

Read the new version of bill (SB1341E) you will still have to license your company and then register each locksmith just as you do now. The changes made in the Senate with DPOR they removed the $200.00 dollar cap on the company and the $200.00 cap on registering individual locksmiths, at least with DCJS going in we knew how much it was going to cost. Hey DPOR WHAT"S THE MAX!!! DPOR will still add more cost during the writing of the regulations, like training, fingerprinting and background checks, proof of business insurance, ECT. ________________________WAKE UP!!!!!! Read your own Bill, DPOR has just uncapped the fees! All this for the same thing, really. Is this what we want?

Troy Miller writes:

Thanks guys for the response, but I still do not see where any scammer has left the state. Being aware of a problem does mean it will be solved. How many assurances do you need before something substatial is done? How much time do you want? I am also not a corporation. I am a one man operation who feels the crunch all It is also my understanding that DCJS is trying to shut down ths PSSAB which is where our voice is heard. I have also heard they are trying to reduce their staff. Why would anyone support a law that makes it so restrictive to become a locksmith in Virginia. The requirements they have are across the board for everyone which to me is unfair. The problem we have in my area is the ficticious locksmiths are called, but never show up. I, along with others have brought this to their attention with no response. Until I see an actual result where illegal activity has been addressed, fines have been levied, ficticious phone listings have stopped, and or jail time has been given, and I have been notified of such, my money is going to waste. Everyone has their reasons for doing what they do, but everyone knows the law we have now was not solely created to protect the public. I have not been asked one single time to present my DCJS i.d. by any of my customers since 2008. Look guys, I am all for licensing us, but someone should have addressed the stringent requirements DCJS has before they went forward with this in the first place unless that is what you wanted which lends credence to a statement made in my first letter. How does me not wanting to pay $350.00 every year to belong to a club make me any less capable of serving the public? I am a certified master locksmith who has spent the last 24 years educating myself to insure the public safety. This means alot more to me and my customers than any DCJS certification. Have you seen the locksmith exam that is approved by DCJS? It is embarrasing and a joke. Look how many individuals are exempted in the law we have now, which is one reason why it has no teeth. I know they were excluded because of having to fight them in court. I am holding the new Bill in my hand right now and it is not perfect either, but the Board can make changes that may help us alot easier than DCJS would. I feel the regulations DCJS has are designed for security guards and not locksmiths which is another sticking point with me. Another issue is why do I have to be my own compliance officer if I am a one man operation and I am certified by DCJS anyway. This to me is redundant. Why can't this be changed. DPOR does not require this which makes sense. Oh by the way none of the Bills that have been presented are mine. Some I support and some I don't.