There are antique laws in the attic of our statutory code. Laws that no longer are prosecuted, yet remain official laws.
An abusive tyranny is now fully suffocating the Oklahoma people. It's all encompassing, with not a single agent of the oppression taking any responsibility for any of their action. It's come in the form of a cancerous statutory code. The legislatures of the past 114 years are the primary tyrants, along with our 28 governors.
Remember when your high school civics teacher said; "Ignorance of the law is no excuse!"? Let's break that down... In 1920, the Oklahoma statutory code of laws was about 1% of the pages now bound in 100 volumes. There's not a judge on the Oklahoma bench who could know half of the laws that we could suffer punishment for transgressing. Most of those statutes have no direct victim. They are simply a form of prior restraint of our liberties, under the guise that people will feel safer if we are restricted by a threat of criminal punishment.
The problem is a statutory code which is a thousand times the size it was in 1920. In 1931, it was way bigger, but still one bound book. It's now 96 volumes, at my last count. And many of those statutes still clutter the code even when they're no longer enforced consistently. The code needs to be concise enough that an 18 year old can reasonably be accountable to know the law.
Several egregious examples of bad Oklahoma law are published in the blog, 'It's Still The Law'.
Did anyone require a prior licensing before they got on a horse or took the reins of a carriage? No. Were horses required to display a current license plate of their tails? It would have been unthinkable to a culture who took responsibility for themselves and their action's consequences. I'm not saying all vehicles & drivers should be treated like horses & riders, but it's important to understand that we're turning regulation into prohibition, without admitting it. When drivers licenses were first issued, there was no test. It was given on demand, but could be revoked when a person victimized others in a careless or malicious act. Now we have to prove we can read at a high school level, get good grades, buy approved insurance policies, and tie ourselves to our seats, before we're allowed to drive to a job.
The people are looking for a lawmaker who will be the champion of repealing bad laws, instead of making more oppressive codes.
A court summons is sufficient in most cases, but that's not pacifying of a cop's need to feel empowered, nor their social desire to be respected. If a person fails to show up in court, then a warrant might be needed. But why can't we just declare default judgments when folks don't show up, like we do in civil court cases; and proceed to sentencing? & Why must we always lock up folks found guilty? Can't we find creative things like house arrest, ankle monitors, optional community service, or other ways of preventing the good taxpayers from having to pay for housing, food, medical care, and other expenses of incarcerating those we're mad at?
Many of these statutes are merely laws of govt convenience, so that citizens bear the burden of proving legality, rather than govt proving guilt. Licensure is a prime area of govt. abuse of liberties. A license is, in fact; a govt. declaration that you don't have a constitutional right, but the govt. is giving you a privilege out of the goodness of their tyrannical heart.
Lawyers love the massive expansion of laws, because it makes their profession an essential cost of securing justice for individuals. A simpler code could more easily be mastered by the common man, and courts would cost the people far less to maintain.