Oklahoma Weather Tracking Licensure Legislation

[gdlewen]

Anyone can issue storm warnings. The First Amendment guarantees that.

The first-ever tornado watch was U.S. Air Force (Tinker AFB) and the first-ever tornado warning was WKY TV (now KFOR) in OKC. The NWS didn't have anything to do with either.

Yes but when a media outlet issues a warning should that trigger government action like closing roads or authorizing media to act as emergency vehicles? This bill confers quasi-governmental authority to private companies.

We are not talking about the First Amendment when we talk about who can issue watches etc. in this bill.

Taking out “or qualified media outlets” doesn’t infringe on the rights to issue the forecast. But that change would decouple media outlet actions from government responses.

And the bill doesn’t specify what is a “qualified media outlet.” Is it qualified in the sense of the definition in Section 2? Or is it qualified in the sense of having the expertise to issue a watch or warning. Maybe both? Who determines that in this poorly-worded bill?

It’s interesting that the drafters of the bill excluded media outlets in item (e) in the definition of sig wx events, regarding red flag warnings.

This suggests they didn’t think media outlets need or want that authority. Why? It’s a curious omission, considering they want authority to act in every other instance (b)-(d) & (f).

 

[Warren Faidley]

Including radio stations will add 20-30 more "professional" vehicles on big chase days. This equates to a whooping 60-80 "emergency chase vehicles" running code-3, breaking speed limits, passing everyone and running traffic lights. Nor will you be able to pass these vehicles under Oklahoma Title-47. The traffic disruption will be on the verge of insanity. People will die from this bill, I have zero doubt. When they say it will "not hamper other chasers," it's total BS.

 

[JamesCaruso]

From a recent post on X by Erik Fox, I guess the sponsors of the bill are becoming increasingly pissed off at chasers from outside OK getting involved in the efforts to defeat sb158. I'm sure if they knew that 50+ inexperienced, hyped-up news crews could be driving like crazy during severe weather with flashing red lights, they might think twice. Also sounds like the OHP is turning the screws even more. Good.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1891630707199574525

Kind of what I figured their response would be. Like Erik said, the legislators are elected by Oklahomans.

Does this mean it’s better if out-of-staters do *not* contact the legislators?

 

[Randy Zipser]

From a recent post on X by Erik Fox, I guess the sponsors of the bill are becoming increasingly pissed off at chasers from outside OK getting involved in the efforts to defeat sb158. I'm sure if they knew that 50+ inexperienced, hyped-up news crews could be driving like crazy during severe weather with flashing red lights, they might think twice. Also sounds like the OHP is turning the screws even more. Good.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1891630707199574525

Warren, this is also actually good news for us "out-of-state" chasers as well. If they are getting "pissed off" at "out-of-staters" meddling in their legislative affairs, it means that enough Oklahoma legislators must be getting pressure from beyond their state borders, presumably through social media, to become worried about the bill's passage. Your post above does not say specifically what out-of-state push-back is upsetting them, but an organized boycott of out-of-state chasers would certainly not benefit them, either. So they really cannot afford to just ignore non-resident reactions to this proposed legislation, and to do so would be at their peril, especially economically, as has been discussed previously on this thread.

All the more reason we need to keep up the "non-resident" pressure, even if they don't want to hear from us! So, posters on this thread, resident or not, can reach any/all Oklahoma lawmakers by contacting them individually at the following URLs:

https://www.okhouse.gov/representatives/

Senators | Oklahoma Senate

oksenate.gov

If they don't know about ST already, they should become aware of what we are saying before this bill goes to hearing, which may start as early as tomorrow (see post #269).

 

[Randy Zipser]

Kind of what I figured their response would be. Like Erik said, the legislators are elected by Oklahomans.

Does this mean it’s better if out-of-staters do *not* contact the legislators?

No, James, IMHO. The OK legislators need to hear more from out-of-state chasers who will also be affected in the future should this bill pass. If this forum is any indication (like other social media), most of the opposition is probably coming from non-OK resident chasers. We need to be strong and united in opposition, and make sure these lawmakers know our majority stance on this legislation...and why we take that position.

 

[Warren Faidley]

I just posted this on X. These are the issues with SB158 and how it WILL effect you and the people of Oklahoma.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1891868629735702545

 

[Warren Faidley]

"Nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit or limit the rights of any individual to engage in recreational or commercial storm tracking or chasing."

This does not mean anything in reality or legally. The word "construed" is the key. So what? I'm sure if you are being held up at a toll both because they have been ordered to only allow "professional / licensed" TV crews to pass, you can simply quote this line and the officer will say, "Oh... yes you are right, my mistake, please continue." lol

 

[Warren Faidley]

One of the things we need to watch carefully as this situation evolves, is the possibility of a private entity being assigned or awarded a contract to "register" storm chasers, possibly as a "Storm Chasers Association." This could be executed as part of a bill revision or as a completely different (spin-off) organization. My problem with this is "who" will be running the show and issuing licensing or regulation? I'm not talking about an organization to simply organize chasers to fight future issues, but a group with political and social media ties and the ability to black-ball or ignore chasers they might not agree with. I don't have time to organize such an organization, but hopefully someone here will consider it.

 

[Dan Robinson]

Probably would be good to go back through LSRs and pull all of the ones from out-of-state or non-media chaser reports.

 

[Warren Faidley]

If sb158 passes, which I believe some form will, I will no longer chase in Oklahoma.

 

[Jesse Risley]

The problem is that they are still 'emergency vehicles" under Oklahoma law, which means no passing them, no coming close to them, they can drive above the speed limits, or under. Someone could still declare a state of emergency and only emergency vehicles would be allowed on the road. The fact that the law says it does not impede upon other chasers is moot. There is still a system of classification where only two types of chasers will exist, professional and amateur. Good luck explaining your position to law enforcement. As noted before, this will be direct violation of the First Amendment by not affording the equal access rights to all media and creating a "pay to play" system. There will be a lawsuit filed on day one, guaranteed.

Aren't the media outlets generally in favor of this though? If that's the case they aren't likely to be the ones to front the cost of litigation and ordinary chasers would generally lack standing to initiate a suit if they aren't impacted by a First Amendment tort. Someone who is directly impacted and could show harm will need to be behind initiating litigation on the merits of this question if the bill passes. I can't see the major media players seeing themselves as adversely impacted here since they stand to gain the most.

 

[Warren Faidley]

Aren't the media outlets generally in favor of this though? If that's the case they aren't likely to be the ones to front the cost of litigation and ordinary chasers would generally lack standing to initiate a suit if they aren't impacted by a First Amendment tort. Someone who is directly impacted and could show harm will need to be behind initiating litigation on the merits of this question if the bill passes. I can't see the major media players seeing themselves as adversely impacted here since they stand to gain the most.

Only FCC Licensed TV media and OU research vehicles are included, and maybe radio if they don't get cut in revisions. Print media and out of state media (like the AMA TV crews covering the OK panhandle), would have a First Amendment claim, given they would be excluded, fined and not able to pass road blocks. Chasers like Reed will be given a license, or so I am told, because of his affiliation with one of the news stations. I don't hold that against him, but hopefully he will not use it, as I'm sure it would piss-off a lot of other chasers.

Some lawyers say there is also an argument for live Internet chasers since they do have a history of providing life-saving information during storms. I can only imagine the liability TV stations will inherit if this becomes law. The current $1 million insurance policy requirement is a joke. It should be $5 million+. Since they are aware that some of their drivers have a history of reclkess driving, they are taking on great liability, according to my lawyer wife.

 

[Warren Faidley]

The bill just passed the Retirement and Government Resources Committee 8-0 in favor. I don't see anyway to stop it now. It was fun while it lasted. There are "double agents" working both sides, so it's become increasingly difficult to get accurate inside information.

 

[Blake Naftel]

The bill just passed the Retirement and Government Resources Committee 8-0 in favor. I don't see anyway to stop it now. It was fun while it lasted. There are "double agents" working both sides, so it's become increasingly difficult to get accurate inside information.

Good luck enforcing this. Most people that pursue storms in this day and age drive in excess of 81+ miles per hour. This bill is and remains a distraction to deeper issues nor is a true reality for anyone. Sure, there will be a pull over or two for the clowns that are on the pot, but hey, enjoy the sky while you can, folks! "You" people either voted this in or stood down and allowed it, and it will own you to the end in most respects.

Blake

 

[gdlewen]

Good luck enforcing this. Most people that pursue storms in this day and age drive in excess of 81+ miles per hour. This bill is and remains a distraction to deeper issues nor is a true reality for anyone. Sure, there will be a pull over or two for the clowns that are on the pot, but hey, enjoy the sky while you can, folks! "You" people either voted this in or stood down and allowed it, and it will own you to the end in most respects.

Blake

I take exception to some of the above: they weren't listening to "Us" people in either the House or the Senate Committees that unanimously passed this bill out of committee. The votes indicate that no voices were heard but the special interests advocating for this bill. Any concerns about this bill were dismissed in wholly bipartisan fashion.