ACTION NEEDED!
HJR1034 Nukes OK Constitution’s Gun Rights
Update!! Good News!
We Oklahomans owe a huge debt of gratitude to those who called their senators, and especially the Oklahoma representative for the Gun Owners of America and several legislators who ultimately helped us kill this resolution. It was never heard in the Senate, as the Rules committee chair, Julie Daniels, agreed with us that this proposal had horribly bad language in it.
Proponents argued that they sought this unconstitutional language to cause lawless activist judges in the courts to be more lawfully considerate. This bill was never lawful, and was intended to remain unconstitutional. We cannot begin to approve or support such criminally complicit foolishness, especially when it is a proposed constitutional amendment.
Our exhortation remains, all bills or other proposed legislation must be lawful (ie: constitutional) at introduction. The concern after proper introduction is to then keep bills objectively lawful while working out the subjective aspects of legislation.
We will support all bills which start constitutionally valid, and continue our support as long as they remain lawful. We hope that our friends in whatever organization and endeavor will seek only fully constitutional legislation, without the typical, lawless, legislative game playing which has caused lawlessness throughout our states and nation. Also, legislators are all too often influenced by our friendly special interest groups. We who want lawful governance must demand that not only our legislators and government act lawfully, but that our various groups demand their leadership work for the same.
Proponents argued that they sought this unconstitutional language to cause lawless activist judges in the courts to be more lawfully considerate. This bill was never lawful, and was intended to remain unconstitutional. We cannot begin to approve or support such criminally complicit foolishness, especially when it is a proposed constitutional amendment.
Our exhortation remains, all bills or other proposed legislation must be lawful (ie: constitutional) at introduction. The concern after proper introduction is to then keep bills objectively lawful while working out the subjective aspects of legislation.
We will support all bills which start constitutionally valid, and continue our support as long as they remain lawful. We hope that our friends in whatever organization and endeavor will seek only fully constitutional legislation, without the typical, lawless, legislative game playing which has caused lawlessness throughout our states and nation. Also, legislators are all too often influenced by our friendly special interest groups. We who want lawful governance must demand that not only our legislators and government act lawfully, but that our various groups demand their leadership work for the same.
Overview
The Oklahoma 2nd Amendment Association (OK2A) is pushing HJR1034 through the legislature. The joint resolution proposes putting a constitutional amendment to a vote of the people to amend our state constitution’s gun and arms rights section (OK Constitution, Article 2, Section 26). Last week it passed the House and now moves to the Senate. The problem is that every version of this measure, including the current one, violates numerous constitutional provisions, and most especially the 2nd Amendment. If ratified, it will wreak havoc on Oklahoma citizens’ rights to bear arms. Proponents claim that the measure will restore rights “lost” because of bad judicial rulings. They further claim that amending the OK Constitution will restrain the government from being able to violate our natural rights to all arms. Instead, HJR1034 does just the opposite. It bastardizes inherent natural rights making them out to be gifts of the legislature and government, which they may define, grant, take away, or limit by the arbitrary whim of “a compelling state interest.” Therefore, Constitutional Grounds proposes to amend the measure as we detail below. If the resolution is not amended to properly protect natural rights, then it must be killed. It will be much better to kill it in the legislature than to allow such a nuking of our rights to get to the ballot.
In a spirit of cooperation, Constitutional Grounds has reached out to OK2A and the legislature. In that spirit, we have proposed not to kill the bill but to keep most of the resolution’s language with very minor but vital changes. These changes make the difference between a constitutionally repugnant measure and one that is constitutionally valid. Sadly, OK2A leadership has not demonstrated that they are willing to collaborate with us to make this constitutional. Our efforts must now be focused on the Senate, to have senators either make the appropriate changes or kill the bill.
We are happy to discuss or debate the merits of this resolution at any time. Our contact information follows this article.
Below you will find the constitution’s current language, the Constitutional Grounds proposed changes, and the language currently before the legislature.
In a spirit of cooperation, Constitutional Grounds has reached out to OK2A and the legislature. In that spirit, we have proposed not to kill the bill but to keep most of the resolution’s language with very minor but vital changes. These changes make the difference between a constitutionally repugnant measure and one that is constitutionally valid. Sadly, OK2A leadership has not demonstrated that they are willing to collaborate with us to make this constitutional. Our efforts must now be focused on the Senate, to have senators either make the appropriate changes or kill the bill.
We are happy to discuss or debate the merits of this resolution at any time. Our contact information follows this article.
Below you will find the constitution’s current language, the Constitutional Grounds proposed changes, and the language currently before the legislature.
Current and Proposed Language
Current Article 2, Section 26 of Oklahoma Constitution
The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.
Constitutional Grounds proposed language for HJR1034:
Section 26. A. The fundamental right of each individual citizen to keep and to bear arms, including handguns, rifles, shotguns, knives, nonlethal defensive weapons, and all other arms, as well as ammunition and the components of arms and ammunition, for defense of his or her person or property, in aid of the civil power, lawful hunting and recreation, or for any other rightful purpose, shall not be infringed.
B. No law shall impose registration or special taxation upon the keeping of arms including the acquisition, ownership, possession, sale, or other transfer of arms, ammunition, or the components of arms or ammunition.
Current Legislative HJR1034 language, engrossed from the House to the Senate:
Section 26. A. The fundamental right of each individual citizen to keep and to bear arms in defense of his or her person or property, including handguns, rifles, shotguns, knives, nonlethal defensive weapons, and other arms in common use, as well as ammunition and the components of arms and ammunition, for self-defense, lawful hunting and recreation, in aid of the civil power, when thereunto lawfully summoned, or for any other legitimate purpose, shall not be infringed.
B. This section shall not prevent the Legislature from enforcing or adopting narrowly tailored time, place, and manner regulations, or authorizing political subdivisions to adopt and enforce such regulations, to serve a compelling state interest.
C. No law shall impose registration or special taxation upon the keeping of arms including the acquisition, ownership, possession, or transfer of arms, ammunition, or the components of arms or ammunition.
The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.
Constitutional Grounds proposed language for HJR1034:
Section 26. A. The fundamental right of each individual citizen to keep and to bear arms, including handguns, rifles, shotguns, knives, nonlethal defensive weapons, and all other arms, as well as ammunition and the components of arms and ammunition, for defense of his or her person or property, in aid of the civil power, lawful hunting and recreation, or for any other rightful purpose, shall not be infringed.
B. No law shall impose registration or special taxation upon the keeping of arms including the acquisition, ownership, possession, sale, or other transfer of arms, ammunition, or the components of arms or ammunition.
Current Legislative HJR1034 language, engrossed from the House to the Senate:
Section 26. A. The fundamental right of each individual citizen to keep and to bear arms in defense of his or her person or property, including handguns, rifles, shotguns, knives, nonlethal defensive weapons, and other arms in common use, as well as ammunition and the components of arms and ammunition, for self-defense, lawful hunting and recreation, in aid of the civil power, when thereunto lawfully summoned, or for any other legitimate purpose, shall not be infringed.
B. This section shall not prevent the Legislature from enforcing or adopting narrowly tailored time, place, and manner regulations, or authorizing political subdivisions to adopt and enforce such regulations, to serve a compelling state interest.
C. No law shall impose registration or special taxation upon the keeping of arms including the acquisition, ownership, possession, or transfer of arms, ammunition, or the components of arms or ammunition.
Questioning the Necessity of HJR1034
What follows is a full explanation discussing why the currently proposed legislation is repugnant to the Constitution and why the modifications offered by Constitutional Grounds are consistent with the Constitution, especially our 2nd amendment, equality of citizens, and property rights.
We want to believe that the intent of the resolution writers is sincere, but we cannot agree that the language as currently proposed accomplishes their stated aims. Rather, it asks the people of Oklahoma to invite and codify dictatorial authority and tyranny as valid governmental activity, the very activity which OK2A has repeatedly opposed. It redefines natural rights to arms (properties our founders through the Declaration of Independence said were self-evident, inherent, true, equal, and unalienable), into arbitrary gifts of government, removeable at their whim, and open to private, dictatorial interpretation by government overlords. Our US Constitution codified the above philosophy of the Declaration into our Constitution. Should we find such tyranny in our Oklahoma Bill of Rights? Is this not what our forefathers fought a revolution over?
Article 2, Section 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution declares that amendments to it must “be not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.” Our warning is that as the resolution language now stands, it is wholly repugnant to several US Constitutional provisions (US Constitution, Article 4, Sections 2 & 4 the “privileges and immunities” and the “republican form of government clauses; 14th Amendment, Section 1, the “privileges and immunities” and “equal protection” clauses; and other amendments, the 2nd, rights to all arms; 4th, right to be secure; 5th, property rights; 9th, all unenumerated rights to property and actions; and 13th , no slavery).
It is a valid argument that this bill should just be killed in the legislature, and that no constitutional change should be made. Natural or inherent rights may never be put to a vote which could deny them. That which is naturally, i.e.: inherently, ours cannot be voted away or denied by any government or vote of the people. If it can be voted away, then we are not equal, and rights are not inalienable.
Furthermore, the resolution’s promoters claim their proposal will correct judicial and governmental misconduct by clarifying constitutional language. For some unnamed reason, they believe that a government which has acted “blatantly contrary to the text of the state constitution” will now abide by the new language. Don Spencer, president of OK2A and the primary promoter of the resolution, wrote the following regarding a 1908 landmark court case:
“…the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld a conviction for concealed carry of a pistol. Whatever the merit of that result, the reasoning that the Oklahoma Supreme Court used to get there was blatantly contrary to the text of the state constitution.”
He also wrote of another landmark court case stating:
“Indeed, the court went out of its way to stress that, despite the guarantee of a right to bear arms in the state constitution, a complete ban of pistols and revolvers would be perfectly constitutional: the government ‘has power to not only prohibit the carrying of concealed or unconcealed [pistols or revolvers], but also has the power to even prohibit the ownership or possession of such arms.’”
These rulings in defiance of the law do not constitute a valid reason to amend the Constitution. His arguments are not to correct judicial and governmental criminal malfeasance, and not that there is anything wrong with the wording, yet he seeks to change the wording of this section. We all know that courts care nothing for either of our constitutions. They do whatever they want. So, what makes us think that this amendment will change anything? Spencer’s own arguments demonstrate it will not.
Further, Spencer claims he fears the legislature will not accept and pass a constitutionally valid proposition and therefore he will not offer one. Yet, constitutional bills and resolutions are the barest minimum that our legislators owe the people of Oklahoma. They swear an oath to “support, obey, and defend” the Constitutions of the US and OK. The sadness of these realities, and the massive vote for this unconstitutional measure in the House, is overwhelming and says much about our choices in legislators. But we must not yield to the temptation to introduce unconstitutional bills. To offer illegal bills is to legitimize and be complicit in the government criminality we all claim to abhor.
But, if we accept the argument that the language could be changed to better protect us from rights deprivations, what is needed to make this resolution constitutionally valid? Just a few very simple language changes and the middle section must be eliminated from the current language.
We want to believe that the intent of the resolution writers is sincere, but we cannot agree that the language as currently proposed accomplishes their stated aims. Rather, it asks the people of Oklahoma to invite and codify dictatorial authority and tyranny as valid governmental activity, the very activity which OK2A has repeatedly opposed. It redefines natural rights to arms (properties our founders through the Declaration of Independence said were self-evident, inherent, true, equal, and unalienable), into arbitrary gifts of government, removeable at their whim, and open to private, dictatorial interpretation by government overlords. Our US Constitution codified the above philosophy of the Declaration into our Constitution. Should we find such tyranny in our Oklahoma Bill of Rights? Is this not what our forefathers fought a revolution over?
Article 2, Section 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution declares that amendments to it must “be not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.” Our warning is that as the resolution language now stands, it is wholly repugnant to several US Constitutional provisions (US Constitution, Article 4, Sections 2 & 4 the “privileges and immunities” and the “republican form of government clauses; 14th Amendment, Section 1, the “privileges and immunities” and “equal protection” clauses; and other amendments, the 2nd, rights to all arms; 4th, right to be secure; 5th, property rights; 9th, all unenumerated rights to property and actions; and 13th , no slavery).
It is a valid argument that this bill should just be killed in the legislature, and that no constitutional change should be made. Natural or inherent rights may never be put to a vote which could deny them. That which is naturally, i.e.: inherently, ours cannot be voted away or denied by any government or vote of the people. If it can be voted away, then we are not equal, and rights are not inalienable.
Furthermore, the resolution’s promoters claim their proposal will correct judicial and governmental misconduct by clarifying constitutional language. For some unnamed reason, they believe that a government which has acted “blatantly contrary to the text of the state constitution” will now abide by the new language. Don Spencer, president of OK2A and the primary promoter of the resolution, wrote the following regarding a 1908 landmark court case:
“…the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld a conviction for concealed carry of a pistol. Whatever the merit of that result, the reasoning that the Oklahoma Supreme Court used to get there was blatantly contrary to the text of the state constitution.”
He also wrote of another landmark court case stating:
“Indeed, the court went out of its way to stress that, despite the guarantee of a right to bear arms in the state constitution, a complete ban of pistols and revolvers would be perfectly constitutional: the government ‘has power to not only prohibit the carrying of concealed or unconcealed [pistols or revolvers], but also has the power to even prohibit the ownership or possession of such arms.’”
These rulings in defiance of the law do not constitute a valid reason to amend the Constitution. His arguments are not to correct judicial and governmental criminal malfeasance, and not that there is anything wrong with the wording, yet he seeks to change the wording of this section. We all know that courts care nothing for either of our constitutions. They do whatever they want. So, what makes us think that this amendment will change anything? Spencer’s own arguments demonstrate it will not.
Further, Spencer claims he fears the legislature will not accept and pass a constitutionally valid proposition and therefore he will not offer one. Yet, constitutional bills and resolutions are the barest minimum that our legislators owe the people of Oklahoma. They swear an oath to “support, obey, and defend” the Constitutions of the US and OK. The sadness of these realities, and the massive vote for this unconstitutional measure in the House, is overwhelming and says much about our choices in legislators. But we must not yield to the temptation to introduce unconstitutional bills. To offer illegal bills is to legitimize and be complicit in the government criminality we all claim to abhor.
But, if we accept the argument that the language could be changed to better protect us from rights deprivations, what is needed to make this resolution constitutionally valid? Just a few very simple language changes and the middle section must be eliminated from the current language.
Examination of Proposed Sub-Section A
In Section A, we propose a small rewording for improved phrasing and removal of duplicate language (e.g.: “for defense of his or her person or property” and “self-defense”). These changes simplify and clarify the sentence.
We also propose to change “other arms in common use” to “all other arms…” This is because “in common use” is a limiter to an unlimited right. According to Spencer, this is language from US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and something we should not be concerned about. The problem with this is that it is undefined in our constitution. In addition, you must go to a few court writings of Scalia’s alone to discover the hidden meaning, as it supposedly covers all arms. But this claim rings hollow, as we have a right to all weapons, common and uncommon. Scalia’s verbiage was used alongside a defense of “strict scrutiny” and “strict construction” two fictions of the Supreme Court which we describe below addressing sub-section B.
These court writings have no rightful force of law, but their use here would codify them into our state constitution. Judges have repeatedly written that we do not have a right to all arms and that they may be the arbiters of what we may possess. The current language is so lacking in definition that we fully expect legislation and rulings to define and prohibit “uncommon” or newly invented arms, though we have a right to all. This simple change fixes the error.
We propose to change “legitimate” to “rightful” as the former is a subjective term open to prohibitive actions, whereas the latter is objective and cannot be infringed. Rights are natural, inherent, objective, certain, and true, as we learn from the Declaration of Independence. Subjectivity opens the door to tyranny and rights violations under the color of law. As Thomas Jefferson said,
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
Spencer has publicly argued that he believes that the current resolution language is in keeping with the US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment. Yet, he says that he has problems with sub-section B. He cannot have it both ways.
We also propose to change “other arms in common use” to “all other arms…” This is because “in common use” is a limiter to an unlimited right. According to Spencer, this is language from US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and something we should not be concerned about. The problem with this is that it is undefined in our constitution. In addition, you must go to a few court writings of Scalia’s alone to discover the hidden meaning, as it supposedly covers all arms. But this claim rings hollow, as we have a right to all weapons, common and uncommon. Scalia’s verbiage was used alongside a defense of “strict scrutiny” and “strict construction” two fictions of the Supreme Court which we describe below addressing sub-section B.
These court writings have no rightful force of law, but their use here would codify them into our state constitution. Judges have repeatedly written that we do not have a right to all arms and that they may be the arbiters of what we may possess. The current language is so lacking in definition that we fully expect legislation and rulings to define and prohibit “uncommon” or newly invented arms, though we have a right to all. This simple change fixes the error.
We propose to change “legitimate” to “rightful” as the former is a subjective term open to prohibitive actions, whereas the latter is objective and cannot be infringed. Rights are natural, inherent, objective, certain, and true, as we learn from the Declaration of Independence. Subjectivity opens the door to tyranny and rights violations under the color of law. As Thomas Jefferson said,
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
Spencer has publicly argued that he believes that the current resolution language is in keeping with the US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment. Yet, he says that he has problems with sub-section B. He cannot have it both ways.
Examination of Proposed Sub-Section B
Section B must be eliminated. Firstly, it is unnecessary. The legislature, by its very nature, is empowered to regulate. But the problems occur in defining regulations. Government has regularly defined and used the word “regulation” to promote and validate prohibitions and dictates. Regulations may never violate our natural rights. Proper regulations do not discourage, but rather encourage the exercise of rights while providing a means to keep everyone safe as they exercise them.
Secondly, the language of this sub-section proposes to codify into our constitution legal fictions created by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). This language is the “Strict Scrutiny” and “Strict Construction” doctrines which were specifically designed to excuse violations of constitutional restrictions “to serve a compelling state interest.” The government, especially in the courts, has never had any lawful power to allow violations, infringements, or abridgements of the Constitution or rights. Yet, they do it consistently. Even when they supposedly “get a ruling right” they push this doctrine to support their conclusions.
For example, in the District of Columbia v Heller et al (Heller) gun case the SCOTUS majority opinion written by Scalia decided that We the People do not possess the right to all guns, but to “those in common use at the time.” In addition, it used the various “scrutiny tests” concocted through the years by various SCOTUS courts to determine if government actions were egregious enough to trigger an enforcement of the Constitution. These tests are meant to deny a clear cut right, giving government leave to violate the clear language of the Constitution. Further, this raises the judiciary and government above the rest of us. This is a blatant violation of the “privileges and immunities” clauses (Article 4, Section 2; 14th Amendment) which mean that we are all equal. Government may not violate our rights any differently than individuals may not violate their neighbor’s rights.
(For background about the history of “strict judicial scrutiny” see https://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/33_54UCLALRev1267June2007.pdf.)
This language proposes to codify into our Constitution all these judicial infringements. If these rights can be violated, then they are not inalienable. This section allows the government, especially the legislature and judiciary, to be the declarers, definers, and givers of rights. Under this section, rights are not inherent to the individual, i.e.: not endowed upon us from Nature and Nature’s God, as our founders codified them, but rather gifts of lawmakers, to be withheld at government’s whim. Therefore, this section must be eliminated.
Secondly, the language of this sub-section proposes to codify into our constitution legal fictions created by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). This language is the “Strict Scrutiny” and “Strict Construction” doctrines which were specifically designed to excuse violations of constitutional restrictions “to serve a compelling state interest.” The government, especially in the courts, has never had any lawful power to allow violations, infringements, or abridgements of the Constitution or rights. Yet, they do it consistently. Even when they supposedly “get a ruling right” they push this doctrine to support their conclusions.
For example, in the District of Columbia v Heller et al (Heller) gun case the SCOTUS majority opinion written by Scalia decided that We the People do not possess the right to all guns, but to “those in common use at the time.” In addition, it used the various “scrutiny tests” concocted through the years by various SCOTUS courts to determine if government actions were egregious enough to trigger an enforcement of the Constitution. These tests are meant to deny a clear cut right, giving government leave to violate the clear language of the Constitution. Further, this raises the judiciary and government above the rest of us. This is a blatant violation of the “privileges and immunities” clauses (Article 4, Section 2; 14th Amendment) which mean that we are all equal. Government may not violate our rights any differently than individuals may not violate their neighbor’s rights.
(For background about the history of “strict judicial scrutiny” see https://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/33_54UCLALRev1267June2007.pdf.)
This language proposes to codify into our Constitution all these judicial infringements. If these rights can be violated, then they are not inalienable. This section allows the government, especially the legislature and judiciary, to be the declarers, definers, and givers of rights. Under this section, rights are not inherent to the individual, i.e.: not endowed upon us from Nature and Nature’s God, as our founders codified them, but rather gifts of lawmakers, to be withheld at government’s whim. Therefore, this section must be eliminated.
Examination of Proposed Sub-Section C
The final sub-section now listed as C, which we propose to be sub-section B, has just two words changed. Firstly, the addition of “sale” is suggested only for clarity. We believe as do resolution proponents that all sales would be covered under “transfer of arms.” We believe that all the verbiage included in this sub-section is unnecessary, except that tyrants have used the “more clarification is needed” lie since statehood, as though simple language isn’t clear enough. Sales, along with every other aspect of keeping and bearing arms as detailed in this section, are covered under the US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment acknowledgment of right. But since government tyrants have denied that rights are rights, and that the meaning of all-encompassing language means what it says, and have repeatedly legislated and judged deprivations of our rights, this clarity should remove any chance of confusion. Secondly, the addition of “other” to “transfer of arms” is again just to add clarity. To omit these changes would not be a problem if there is sufficient writing that “sales” was included in the legislative intent of the term “transfer.” The legislature would need to quickly create legislation which would carry into effect this intent. These suggestions are in keeping with the resolution author’s intent to create clarity and prevent tyrants from claiming that something isn’t covered. Failing to include these changes emboldens the government to continue the prohibition schemes that they currently run on sales and transfers of arms.
Conclusions and Call to Action
To be consistent with the 2nd Amendment minor but significant changes to sub-sections A & C and the elimination of sub-section B are required. These changes will assure the protection of our natural rights, codified by the 2nd Amendment, rather than open the door to governmental abuse. Without these changes this resolution must be killed in the legislature. It is the duty of every legislator to amend or to kill it.
Therefore, your help to push a constitutionally consistent version of this resolution through the legislature is vital. This resolution is now in the OK Senate. Contact your senator, and especially President Pro Tempore Greg Treat, and demand they amend the resolution as Constitutional Grounds has proposed, or kill the bill.
Find your senator here, https://oksenate.gov/.
Contact Senator Treat’s office here, 405-521-5632, [email protected].
Contact the Senate author, David Bullard here, 495-521-5586, [email protected].
Follow HJR1034 here, http://oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HJR1034.
Finally follow Constitutional Grounds’ social media page here, https://www.facebook.com/ConstitutionalGrounds for information about committee assignment when scheduled and other important information as it arises. These are OUR rights held individually and collectively. It will take us all to stop this debacle.
Constitutional Grounds agrees that pursuing a legislative joint resolution rather than getting signatures on an initiative petition is a much easier and cost-efficient path to getting a proposition to the people. We also agree that eliminating any excuse to freely violate the people of Oklahoma is a good endeavor. We are owed and demand only that a constitutionally valid version go to the people, and we are eager to have the discussions surrounding law and liberty which will undoubtedly arise.
Respectfully submitted for your consideration,
David Oldham
Constitutional Grounds, Founder
Therefore, your help to push a constitutionally consistent version of this resolution through the legislature is vital. This resolution is now in the OK Senate. Contact your senator, and especially President Pro Tempore Greg Treat, and demand they amend the resolution as Constitutional Grounds has proposed, or kill the bill.
Find your senator here, https://oksenate.gov/.
Contact Senator Treat’s office here, 405-521-5632, [email protected].
Contact the Senate author, David Bullard here, 495-521-5586, [email protected].
Follow HJR1034 here, http://oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HJR1034.
Finally follow Constitutional Grounds’ social media page here, https://www.facebook.com/ConstitutionalGrounds for information about committee assignment when scheduled and other important information as it arises. These are OUR rights held individually and collectively. It will take us all to stop this debacle.
Constitutional Grounds agrees that pursuing a legislative joint resolution rather than getting signatures on an initiative petition is a much easier and cost-efficient path to getting a proposition to the people. We also agree that eliminating any excuse to freely violate the people of Oklahoma is a good endeavor. We are owed and demand only that a constitutionally valid version go to the people, and we are eager to have the discussions surrounding law and liberty which will undoubtedly arise.
Respectfully submitted for your consideration,
David Oldham
Constitutional Grounds, Founder