McBride & McBride - Lawyers of Oklahoma

06/19/2026

Supreme Court Limits Federal Gun Ban for Ma*****na Users in Today’s Ruling!

The Supreme Court’s decision today in United States v. Hemani is an important Second Amendment ruling.

The Court held that the federal government cannot automatically take away someone’s gun rights based only on ma*****na use. That does not mean ma*****na users are completely protected, and it does not make mixing ma*****na and fi****ms risk-free.

The decision leaves room for charges involving intoxication, addiction, violence, dangerousness, or other aggravating facts.

For Oklahoma medical ma*****na patients and gun owners, this is a major case to watch.

06/03/2026

We want to thank the Delaware County Commissioners for approving our representation of Delaware County Sheriff Ray Thomas.

Our firm looks forward to helping Sheriff Thomas address issues like these and fight for necessary policy changes as they arise. Our goal is to help Sheriff Thomas protect law enforcement, promote sound decision-making, and avoid unnecessary taxpayer spending whenever possible.

A dispute between the Delaware County Sheriff’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office led to the Delaware County Commissioners approving the hiring of outside counsel in McBride & McBride of Pryor. The retainer is $2,500, which will be paid from the sheriff’s budget.

The dispute involves a warrant served on May 14, on David E. Hunter, 42, of Afton. Hunter was found inside a building and armed when officers attempted to take him into custody, firing multiple shots at the officers.

During the course of the arrest, Hunter was wounded and transferred to St. John’s Hospital in Tulsa. His wounds led to him being a paraplegic, according to authorities.
Read the full story in today's Grove Sun.

06/01/2026

Oklahoma’s DUI Laws Are Changing

Oklahoma Senate Bill 1543 was signed into law and becomes effective November 1, 2026.

The bill changes how repeat DUI cases can be prosecuted. Under the new law, if a person commits two or more separate DUI offenses within one year, those offenses may be aggregated and prosecuted as one felony offense.

That means repeat DUI conduct within a short period of time can now be charged as a Class C2 felony, with the case filed in the county where the last DUI occurred. If other related DUI charges are pending in another county, those charges can be dismissed without prejudice and included in the aggregated felony prosecution.

In plain terms: Oklahoma is increasing the consequences for repeat DUI offenders. A person who picks up multiple DUIs within a year may now face a felony case instead of each DUI being handled separately as a lower-level offense.

The law is aimed at repeat offenders and gives prosecutors a stronger tool when someone continues to drive under the influence despite prior arrests.

05/29/2026

Oklahoma Supreme Court Invalidates Tulsa’s Municipal-Tribal Settlement Agreement

The Oklahoma Supreme Court issued an important decision in State ex rel. Stitt v. City of Tulsa, 2026 OK 39, involving Tulsa’s settlement agreement with the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.

The agreement arose out of federal litigation over whether the City of Tulsa could exercise municipal criminal jurisdiction over Indian defendants for conduct occurring within the Muscogee reservation. As part of the settlement, Tulsa agreed that it would not exercise criminal jurisdiction over Indian defendants on the Nation’s reservation. The agreement also required Tulsa to dismiss pending municipal prosecutions against Indian defendants and refrain from filing future municipal prosecutions against Indian defendants for conduct occurring within the reservation.

Tulsa argued that the settlement agreement was simply an extension or reaffirmation of an existing cross-deputization agreement with the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. The Oklahoma Supreme Court disagreed. The Court found that the settlement created new and independent obligations, including a substantial change to Tulsa’s exercise of prosecutorial authority.

The Court held that the settlement was an intergovernmental cooperative agreement between a political subdivision and a tribal government. Under 74 O.S. § 1221(D)(1), that type of agreement requires approval from both the Governor and the Joint Committee on State-Tribal Relations before it becomes effective.

Because those approvals were not obtained, the Court held the agreement was unenforceable as a matter of law.

This decision is significant for municipalities, tribal governments, and public officials across eastern Oklahoma. It reinforces that cities may work cooperatively with tribal governments, but agreements involving law enforcement, prosecution, public safety, or jurisdiction must comply with Oklahoma’s statutory approval process before implementation.

05/22/2026

🚨 Breaking Legal News: Oklahoma Court Of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge Gary L. Lumpkin To Retire

Presiding Judge Gary L. Lumpkin has announced his retirement from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, effective January 1, 2027. Judge Lumpkin has served on the Court since 1989 after being appointed by Governor Henry Bellmon.

This is a major development because the Court of Criminal Appeals is Oklahoma’s highest court for criminal cases. It has the final say in state criminal appeals, including convictions, sentences, constitutional issues, and death penalty cases.

The next judge will not be chosen in a regular election. Applicants will go through Oklahoma’s Judicial Nominating Commission process. The Commission reviews applicants and sends three names to the Governor, who then appoints one of them.

This appointment will help shape Oklahoma criminal law for years to come.

05/14/2026

What Are Your Second Amendment Rights After a Felony Conviction?

Another major Second Amendment decision was just issued by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Riddle. The Court reaffirmed that the federal felon-in-possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), remains constitutional even after the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Bruen and Rahimi regarding Second Amendment Rights.

To understand why this matters, you have to start with New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022. In Bruen, the United States Supreme Court dramatically changed how courts analyze firearm laws. Instead of allowing courts to uphold gun restrictions based on public policy or “government interests,” the Court held that firearm regulations must be consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation in America.

That decision opened the door to challenges against numerous federal firearm laws, including the federal law prohibiting convicted felons from possessing fi****ms.

Since Bruen, defendants across the country have argued that there is no historical tradition supporting lifetime firearm bans for all felons, particularly nonviolent offenders. Some courts, including the Third Circuit in Range v. Attorney General, showed a willingness to reconsider portions of the law.

The Tenth Circuit, however, has consistently rejected those arguments.

In Riddle, the defendant argued that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional both facially and as applied to him because his prior convictions were nonviolent. The Tenth Circuit disagreed and held it remains bound by prior precedent upholding the law. The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s more recent decision in United States v. Rahimi, where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that historical tradition supports disarming dangerous individuals.

The practical takeaway: in Oklahoma and throughout the Tenth Circuit, federal courts continue to uphold the constitutionality of the federal felon-in-possession statute despite ongoing Second Amendment litigation nationwide.

This area of law continues to evolve rapidly, but for now, the Tenth Circuit has made its position very clear.

05/12/2026

What is a “Section 1983” lawsuit?

A recent Tenth Circuit case, VanHorn v. Salvation Army, provides a good example of how these federal civil-rights cases work, and their limits.

A claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (commonly called a “1983 action”) is a federal lawsuit that allows a person to sue when someone acting “under color of state law” violates their constitutional rights. These cases are often filed against police officers, jail officials, municipalities, school districts, or other government actors for alleged violations of rights protected by the United States Constitution.

Examples can include allegations involving:
- unlawful arrests,
- excessive force,
- violations of free speech,
- due process violations,
- unlawful searches and seizures, or
- deliberate indifference by government entities.

But one critical requirement is this: the defendant generally must be a government actor or acting jointly with the government.

In VanHorn, the plaintiff attempted to sue private parties along with law enforcement and government officials after a dispute at a Salvation Army store resulted in criminal charges. The Tenth Circuit dismissed the claims and reiterated an important rule:

Simply calling the police or providing information to officers does NOT automatically transform a private citizen or business into a government actor subject to liability under § 1983.

The Court explained that to establish liability against private parties, a plaintiff must plausibly show joint action or a shared unconstitutional objective with the government — not just speculation or conclusory allegations.

The decision also reaffirmed that judges and prosecutors generally receive broad immunity protections for actions taken within their official duties.

Federal civil-rights litigation is one of the most important areas of constitutional law, but these cases are highly technical and require specific factual allegations to proceed.

05/09/2026

Important new Oklahoma custody opinion from Duggan v. Duggan regarding equal parenting time in Oklahoma under 43 O.S. § 110.1.

In Duggan, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed a custody modification order because the trial court reduced the father’s parenting visitation time without making the findings specifically required by Oklahoma law.

The Court held that merely determining a different schedule is in the child’s “best interest” is not enough. When substantially equal access is requested under § 110.1, the trial court must make specific findings explaining why equal parenting time would be detrimental to the child.

The specially concurring opinion is significant because it explains that concerns about parental conflict, communication problems, or even inappropriate behavior are not enough to reduce visitation alone. The trial court must identify evidence showing how the conduct actually harms or adversely affects the child in order to overcome the equal-access presumption contained in § 110.1.

This is an important opinion for Oklahoma custody litigation involving requests for equal parenting time.

05/01/2026

⚖️ The Due Process Protection Act of 2026 goes into effect November 1, 2026!!

Governor Kevin Stitt just signed HB 3742, and it’s going to change how criminal cases are handled across Oklahoma.

This is one of the largest changes in criminal procedure statutes in recent Oklahoma history

Here’s the simple breakdown:
🔴 OLD LAW (Before Nov. 1, 2026)

• Discovery often completed as little as 10 days before trial
• Prosecutors mainly disclosed what they intended to use at trial
• Evidence could come in late in the process
• Preliminary hearings were often limited in scope
• Enforcement for late disclosure was inconsistent

🟢 NEW LAW (After Nov. 1, 2026)

• Discovery must be completed at least 30 days before trial
• Prosecutors must disclose much broader categories of evidence
• All favorable (exculpatory) evidence must be turned over
• Disclosure obligation is ongoing throughout the case
• Applies to law enforcement and investigative agencies
• Preliminary hearings become more meaningful and evidence-driven
• Courts have clearer authority to exclude evidence or sanction violations

⚖️ What that actually means:

Less surprise. More transparency. Earlier case evaluation.

This is a pretty big shift away from how things have traditionally worked.

04/29/2026

When Are Miranda Warnings Required? Oklahoma Court Clarifies

Most people have heard the phrase: “You have the right to remain silent…” but what actually triggers those rights?

Miranda warnings are required when a person is subjected to custodial interrogation, meaning they are both in custody (under arrest or restrained to a degree similar to arrest) and being questioned by law enforcement.

If those conditions are met, officers must advise a person of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present. If not, statements can be excluded from evidence.

In the recent case State v. Cody Owen Russell, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals addressed where that line is drawn.

During the ex*****on of a search warrant, Mr. Russell was asked to return home from work, stood outside while officers searched his house, and answered questions about items and devices, all without receiving Miranda warnings. The trial court suppressed his statements, finding he was effectively in custody because he did not feel free to leave.

The appellate court reversed.

The Court explained that feeling like you are not free to leave is not enough. The proper legal standard is whether a reasonable person would view the situation as the equivalent of a formal arrest. Temporary detentions, even those where a person is not free to walk away, do not automatically trigger Miranda protections.

Key takeaway: Miranda applies only when restraint rises to the level of an arrest. The test is objective, not based on a person’s subjective belief.

This decision reinforces a critical distinction in criminal law between investigative detention and custodial interrogation, and why that distinction matters.