I suggest that you consider the following opinions expressed in your own words. We have just joined forces with an attorney who specializes in these types of cases. Legal ramifications may change, especially if someone tries to "dumb-down" the bill without actually altering the philosophy behind it. It would significantly help the argument if the individual(s) "well-known chasers" who proposed this bill would stop hiding in the dark and step forward to take responsibility for their actions.
1: Enforcement: Sen. Mark Mann (D) Oklahoma stated the following in reference to enforcement of the SB-158: Enforcement?
“That would obviously be up to local law enforcement, and however they see fit to enforce that." This would likely violate "unequal protection" under the US Constitution. Reference:
https://kfor.com/news/oklahoma-legislature/bill-targets-storm-chasers-with-licensure-requirements/
2: Endangerment: Under the open enforcement rule of SB-158, law enforcement (or the actual licensed emergency vehicles) could, at their discretion and under Oklahoma law, block, delay, re-route or slow traffic on highways to allow only "licensed" vehicles to move forward or change direction. As any experienced chaser knows, any delay in travel routes could easily place them (and the public) in grave danger from severe weather, tornadoes, high winds, blizzard conditions, fire, hail, dust, etc. Unknown to officers, escape routes could be cut off, and even a minor delay could result in serious injuries, as witnessed during the El Reno, Oklahoma tornado event in 2013 when traffic was delayed for various reasons.
3: Undefined laws: With hundreds of county and city jurisdictions interpreting the law
"as they see fit," this could result in the arrest or citing of innocent chasers who do not qualify for a license but have every legal right to travel on open highways. Theoretically, chasers discovered in a "license" only area or in a convoy of licensed vehicles could face fines or arrest.
4: Lack of evidence the bill will work: There is no evidence that allowing "licensed vehicles" to operate as emergency vehicles will actually improve their ability to achieve what the bill is designed for. Research supports this and suggests emergency vehicles are more likely to cause serious accidents, especially with untrained and inexperienced drivers. The public could be placed in danger. Reference:
Quick Take: It’s time to flip the switch on hot EMS response
5: First Amendment: The bill could violate the First Amendment by selectively choosing media sources and requiring a "pay to play" license to participate and gain access to active weather events. (See no 1). The bill does not allow "licensing" and thus, equal access by all accredited media and storm safety personnel including print, radio, out-of-state media, live Internet reporters, NOAA employees and NOAA certified Skywarn storm spotters. Not everyone in Oklahoma monitors local TV exclusively for live reports.
6: Limited research vehicle licensing. The bill is limited to researchers in Oklahoma only.
7: Reporting limitations: Limiting the ability to confirm severe weather events (e.g. "ground truth") to a limited number of licensed TV media sources could endanger the public because a large number of reports and confirmations come from the public, law enforcement, Skywarn and Internet (live) storm chasers. In addition, modern radar and aircraft (helicopters) can often confirm tornadoes before ground spotters.
8: No allowance for EMS chasers: The bill does not allow qualified, certified EMS personnel (in and out of state) to respond in a similar manner via licensing. These individuals have a history of assisting rural communities where EMS services may be limited or delayed. Preventing highly trained individuals entry because they do not have a "license" is unacceptable.
9: Lack of support by law enforcement. No active law enforcement officers in Okalhoma have come forward to support this bill. The idea of allowing civilians to run "code" with emergency equipment is absurd.
