PA Bill Number: SB1198
Title: In plants and plant products, providing for plant and pollinator protection; conferring powers and duties on the Department of Agriculture and ...
Description: In plants and plant products, providing for plant and pollinator protection; conferring powers and duties on the Department of Agriculture and .. ...
Last Action: Referred to AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AFFAIRS
Last Action Date: May 17, 2024
Law professor: Resolution is an effort to repair Oklahomans' right to arms :: 05/06/2016
Because Oklahoma is considered gun friendly, it may be surprising to learn that the Oklahoma Constitution today gives virtually no protection to the right to keep and bear arms.
Since our state constitution was adopted in 1907, the courts have weakened its gun rights amendment by ruling that our right to arms is not about personal defense; that it does not protect common self-defense weapons; and that the state can make it illegal to carry a handgun in your own backyard. Shockingly, an early Oklahoma court even stated that it would not violate the state constitution to ban handguns entirely.
Meanwhile, the protections of the federal Second Amendment depend on narrow 5-4 rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court whose future is precarious after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
Essentially, the reason gun rights endure in Oklahoma is because our state lawmakers have wisely rejected the types of draconian statutes found in New York or New Jersey. But using that as a reason to ignore the weakness of constitutional protections would be like assuming a ship with no life vests will remain safe, simply because it hasn't yet hit stormy seas. What happens when gun control advocate and billionaire Michael Bloomberg sets his sights on Oklahoma — as he has done with states like Colorado and Oregon in
recent years?
The solution? Fix our right to arms. If approved by a conference committee of the Legislature, House Joint Resolution 1009 would allow Oklahomans to vote in November to amend our constitution to protect arms for self-defense, and require state and municipal gun restrictions to satisfy “strict scrutiny,” the level of review courts ordinarily apply to restrictions on a fundamental right.
Some prominent voices have recently sought to frighten Oklahomans away from this needed repair. However, the measure would not disturb private property owners' rights. Like other constitutional rights, it's a restraint on government. (Indeed, the measure's supporters have offered to include express language recognizing this limitation.)
Louisiana, Missouri and Alabama have already adopted constitutional amendments similar to HJR 1009, with the approval of large voter majorities. Louisiana's courts have explained that “strict scrutiny” does not mean an end to gun regulation. Rather, it means that courts must carefully consider whether such laws are narrowly tailored to protect public safety. Laws banning gun possession by felons, regulating access by minors and requiring a “shall issue” permit to carry concealed (as Oklahoma does today) have all been upheld as valid under strict scrutiny.
HJR 1009 would also prevent the state from imposing registration or special taxes on the ownership of arms and ammunition. This is important, since some communities around the country are seeking to impose arbitrary taxes on guns. One federal appeals court — applying less than strict scrutiny — upheld New York City's requirement to pay a $340 fee, every three years, just to own a handgun.
Oklahomans deserve the chance to vote on this proposed amendment and protect the right to self-defense, not only today but for generations to come.
O'Shea is a professor at Oklahoma City University School of Law. The views expressed here are his own.
