01-09-2006, 05:20 PM
A quick sample of laws regarding possession of devices for removing anti-theft devices.
New Hampshire
Mississippi
Idaho
New Hampshire's, Mississippi's, and Idaho's language is such that for a tool to be an anti-theft device remover it must have been "designed to allow the removal of any theft detection device...." Pliers are not theft detection device removers as they were not designed to remove theft detection devices - pliers were designed prior to the advent of anti-theft devices, so they couldn't have been made for that purpose. So in this case, the woman in question clearly would not have been guilty of possession of a device designed to remove theft detection devices.
In an example of legislative lucidity, Mississippi's language for what constitutes punishable possession of the device in question is such that one doesn't illegally possess such a device unless he also has intent to employ the device for theft detection device removal.
New Hampshire
Mississippi
Idaho
New Hampshire's, Mississippi's, and Idaho's language is such that for a tool to be an anti-theft device remover it must have been "designed to allow the removal of any theft detection device...." Pliers are not theft detection device removers as they were not designed to remove theft detection devices - pliers were designed prior to the advent of anti-theft devices, so they couldn't have been made for that purpose. So in this case, the woman in question clearly would not have been guilty of possession of a device designed to remove theft detection devices.
In an example of legislative lucidity, Mississippi's language for what constitutes punishable possession of the device in question is such that one doesn't illegally possess such a device unless he also has intent to employ the device for theft detection device removal.