Oklahoma Weather Tracking Licensure Legislation

[William Monfredo]

one solution is not chasing in OK anymore. It sucks anyway.

Objection, inflammatory. Sustained.

As for tour groups, they are not "media" or "research" qualified.

Good point, probably not emergency, either.

 

[Drew Terril]

Now that I've seen the bill is from the minority party in the legislature, I don't see this bill getting anywhere. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the Oklahoma news stations had a lot to do with this either. As to the bill's definition of "media", it does specify a station with an FCC license who broadcasts from within the state of Oklahoma. So that would put stations from surrounding states out of the running right out of the gate.

While I'm sure the language of the bill can be changed, as it is currently written, I don't see anything in the language that would change anything for us "recreational" chasers, of which a non negligible number of us have training that would apply to a disaster scenario. That said, if they do widen the scope of the bill as written to completely ban all those who don't fall into that category, then it appears that it would also rule out spotters as well. Knowing quite a few people in the ham group in Norman (one of the better organized ones), I'm not sure how many of them are aware of this bill. Same with the one out of Tulsa who has a linked repeater system covering most of the eastern 1/3 of Oklahoma and parts of NW Arkansas.

 

[gdlewen]

Here's a big problem with this bill: the fuzzy training language, only appearing twice and in the form of certification from a "dean, director, or [records custodian]", that the

"prospective professional severe weather tracker possesses the knowledge, experience, and training to exercise the powers and duties of the license responsibly."

But I don't see specifics on training, experience or knowledge. What are the specific powers and duties? Maybe I missed this stuff.

Anyway, this is the rub--the imprecise language in statute that permits government agencies to make their own interpretation of legislative intent. Without guardrails ("negative liberty"), there is no limit to how this can be interpreted.

And once having taken away your rights, the government forces you into court to seek redress, only for you to find that the government has immunity. This happens all the time. Just look at your local superior court records to find how often state employees are dismissed from lawsuits due to immunity conferred by your state tort statutes.

If this sounds extreme, and not likely to "happen here", it probably won't--at first. People have been thinking "it won't happen here" for years as their rights have been slowly eroded by "good intentions".

This is simply bad law, with lots of potential for unintended consequences.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I don't see anything in the language that would change anything for us "recreational" chasers, of which a non negligible number of us have training that would apply to a disaster scenario.

I agree there is nothing in the language that should change anything for us. Separately though, I don’t think training helps, without having a direct link or relationship to the types of organizations or institutions mentioned in the bill.

 

[Brett Roberts]

If something like this were to pass, however unlikely, it would sprout tentacles over time as issues arise. Could definitely be used as a gateway law to gain control over situations that nobody is able to do right now, e.g. Kingfisher 2010, Mangum 2019 and Hinton 2024 convergences.

This is pretty much my take, too.

The text of the bill sounds relatively benign, and there's been some overreaction on social media due to misunderstandings. But in the medium-long term, I'd still be quite concerned in the unlikely event that it gains traction and passes. Legislation specifically directing LEOs to handle certain chasers one way and other chasers another way, including definitions for which SPC risk categories trigger certain responses, is likely very fraught ground for most of us.

On most storms in most states, LEOs aren't even thinking about the existence of storm chasers unless/until they encounter a big group of us in the heat of the action... by which time it's probably too late to coordinate sophisticated roadblock tactics, even if they might be tempted to in the moment. But if storm chasers ever became an official consideration that LEOs are routinely planning for on the morning of severe weather days, my hunch is that we'd see a lot more roadblocks and other tactics deployed. Sure, it's been said for decades that "they can't stop us from driving on public Kansas highways in May," and that's true. But I'm afraid if there's enough of a will, they could drastically curtail access once there's an established, tornado-warned storm, far more often than they currently do... so I've never been one to completely laugh off this "threat."

In any case, the idea of media chasers or anyone else not doing direct emergency response (even including scientific field projects, which are far more sympathetic than local media) being treated the same as an ambulance by law is simply laughable and hard to take seriously. Let's hope this quickly dies out, rather than morphing into or inspiring something less cartoonish that gains traction.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I am posting again below for convenience the KFOR link that Dan posted above - I don’t know if anyone watched the embedded video, but I suggest you do. Direct link to the video here:

https://kfor.com/video/bill-would-require-storm-trackers-to-get-a-state-license/10418728

The news anchor definitely frames it as needing a license just to operate in the state; no reference at all to just needing it to get through roadblocks etc. Of course, what the anchor says is meaningless from a legal standpoint as to what the law can and can’t do, but it does give an indication of underlying catalysts of the proposed law, intent, public perception, etc.

https://kfor.com/news/oklahoma-legislature/bill-targets-storm-chasers-with-licensure-requirements/

 

[Drew Terril]

As the bill is currently written, the specific powers entail:

"Be authorized to be equipped and to use visual marking signals (aka lightbars)"

And once "conditions of a significant weather event have been met", they'll have the legal ability to "activate the visual signals (lightbars)," "be considered an emergency vehicle," "travel upon roads closed by ODOT, OTA, any city or county, or any law enforcement agency." Basically, they'll allowed to use emergency lights and pass roadblocks. I'm not seeing any language whatsoever even mentioning recreational chasing or local spotters on roads that aren't closed.

I always take what anchors say with a grain of salt. Especially since I strongly suspect that KFOR, News9, etc, have at least something to do with this bill, and just the nature of broadcast news in general where they're trying to get reaction, and to get clicks to their online links, etc.

 

[JamesCaruso]

So the question becomes, what can we / should we do to push back on this and ensure it does not pass? I assume non-residents of Oklahoma can’t do much; nobody will care what we say because we are not voters or constituents. I have written to federal senators before on issues of importance to me even if they are from other states, but that’s on federal issues that are not specific to their states. In this case, someone in the state Congress couldn’t care less what I have to say; I am not a voter in their re-election campaign. The burden will fall on those who live in OK unfortunately, but I am happy to support any way I can, up to and including donating to legal defense funds if needed.

 

[gdlewen]

Basically, they'll allowed to use emergency lights and pass roadblocks. I'm not seeing any language whatsoever even mentioning recreational chasing or local spotters on roads that aren't closed.

You're right--you don't see it and that's the problem. In statute, if something is not mentioned, you should not assume it is excluded. You should assume it can be included at the discretion of government officials. Fuzzy language, bad law.

The improper (or unanticipated) use of government discretion is the problem. There's nothing to prevent local law enforcement from enforcing "local travel only" during a significant weather event, which is loosely defined to be "a day of enhanced, moderate, or high risk conditions in one or more counties". [Note you have to read to the end of the list to find the "or" that announces that any of the items by themselves constitutes a significant weather event.]

I've read the bill a couple of times and it cannot be fixed by amending it. Nibbling around the edges can never fix a bad bill.

To avoid the unintended consequences all of us have mentioned it should be scrapped and re-written.

 

[Sean Ramsey]

The thing is, someone is thinking about it. It's actively on someone's mind and that someone is in a position to put a spotlight on it, and now has done so. The seed, the one we've long worried about, has been planted. Even if this doesn't come to fruition through this bill, an avenue has been laid out for someone to take in the future.

I'm not one to overreact and most likely this bill won't even make even one of the chambers for vote (as it is). But, I know how things work, and ideas, however out there they may be, can gain momentum. Politicians like staying in office and anything in the name of "Public Safety" will play to voters and colleagues. It wouldn't even be considered a partisan issue if it's framed just right.

Eventually, this could very well make some inroads and affect lots of people who love this hobby. Hopefully it dies a very quick death so the next person won't be as inclined to spend much time on it.

 

[Warren Faidley]

My guess is that this bill will die in committee, but who really knows. Apparently the author of the bill doesn't even know, as what he is on the record saying doesn't match the language of the bill. While I am a media chaser in Oklahoma, I am against this. First off, storm chasing doesn't pay a lot. and I don't want to fork out $500, then $250 annually just so I can chase spinning water vapor. Plus having a licensing number on my vehicle is really lame. It sounds like typical government overreach where the bill is ambiguous in what good it will actually serve while laying a foundation for more overreach in the future. To me, this bill would be the beginning of a slippery slope to "ban" storm chasing. Once they have established language defining what constitutes as a professional, then goodbye independent and amateur chasers. I still don't know how they would enforce a storm chasing ban, but there are plenty of LEO who would love to do so.

Greg, I can guarantee you 100% that they would never give you a license (or me). No offense. This bill is designed for the major TV media in Oklahoma, not private journalists or professional photographers. As I've stated elsewhere, the true purpose (I believe) is to eliminate all Internet competition. Local stations have been complaining about Internet providers like Ryan Hall for years. We really need some transparency and find out who is behind this. Maybe TWC?

 

[Warren Faidley]

The thing is, someone is thinking about it. It's actively on someone's mind and that someone is in a position to put a spotlight on it, and now has done so. The seed, the one we've long worried about, has been planted. Even if this doesn't come to fruition through this bill, an avenue has been laid out for someone to take in the future.

I'm not one to overreact and most likely this bill won't even make even one of the chambers for vote (as it is). But, I know how things work, and ideas, however out there they may be, can gain momentum. Politicians like staying in office and anything in the name of "Public Safety" will play to voters and colleagues. It wouldn't even be considered a partisan issue if it's framed just right.

Eventually, this could very well make some inroads and affect lots of people who love this hobby. Hopefully it dies a very quick death so the next person won't be as inclined to spend much time on it.

Good points, but it would be a BIG mistake not to attack this bill full force and make sure it dies. The NRA is the best example. They have to challenge every single legal threat because it only takes one successful bill to start an avalanche that is almost impossible to control, or requires a wealth of time and money to overcome. The best way to defeat this insanity is to argue that giving the media or researchers the ability to run code-3 is setting the stage for very dangerous behavior, threatening the public. It requires special training to run in emergency mode.

 

[Warren Faidley]

For those who have not seen the KFOR interview with Sen. Mann, here are his rather chilling statements. He will of course, back off when he sees the current backlash, but these statements cannot be denied and they do revel his true intent I believe. His second statement is most disturbing.

1: The genuine purpose of this bill: "Sen. Mann says safety is the focal point of this bill, aiming to get amateurs off the roads and allow professional storm chasers to act as emergency responders.

"2: How would the bill be enforced? “That would obviously be up to local law enforcement, and however they see fit to enforce that,” Sen. Mann said.

 

[Greg McLaughlin]

Greg, I can guarantee you 100% that they would never give you a license (or me). No offense. This bill is designed for the major TV media in Oklahoma, not private journalists or professional photographers. As I've stated elsewhere, the true purpose (I believe) is to eliminate all Internet competition. Local stations have been complaining about Internet providers like Ryan Hall for years. We really need some transparency and find out who is behind this. Maybe TWC?

I would have no issue getting a license because I chase for the Fox affiliate in Tulsa and can meet all the requirements. I don't want to pay to have a license, and have my license # displayed on my vehicle. I also don't want to see other people restricted from chasing. When I started in 1997, I was in high school and had no clue what I was doing, but had a drive to learn. I don't want to see that opportunity taken away from others.

 

[Warren Faidley]

I would have no issue getting a license because I chase for the Fox affiliate in Tulsa and can meet all the requirements. I don't want to pay to have a license, and have my license # displayed on my vehicle. I also don't want to see other people restricted from chasing. When I started in 1997, I was in high school and had no clue what I was doing, but had a drive to learn. I don't want to see that opportunity taken away from others.

I would assume they would limit licensing to actual news trucks, not private vehicles. There is also a notation in the bill about insurance and I'm sure it would need to be a full-blown commercial policy.