Oklahoma Senate Bill SB1755

Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26
• Refer: 2/3/26

Caption

Torts; providing certain immunity. Effective date.

Summary

SB 1755 creates a new provision in Oklahoma tort law granting civil immunity to a religious organization and to its security personnel for acts or omissions by those security personnel that cause death, injury, or property damage, so long as the security personnel were acting within the course and scope of their security duties for the organization. The bill defines both “religious organization” and “security personnel,” and the definition of security personnel includes both paid individuals and volunteers whose duties include providing security services. The immunity applies even if the conduct was intentional or involved the possession or use of a firearm. In practical terms, the bill would shield churches and similar faith-based organizations, along with their security staff, from civil lawsuits arising out of security-related incidents, and it would be codified as a new section in Title 76 of the Oklahoma Statutes. The act is set to take effect November 1, 2026.

Impact

The bill would add a new immunity provision to Oklahoma’s tort statutes, specifically creating Section 113 of Title 76. It would limit civil liability exposure for religious organizations and their security personnel when security-related conduct causes harm, including incidents involving firearms or intentional acts, as long as the conduct occurred within the scope of security duties. The affected parties are religious institutions, their hired security staff, and volunteers serving in security roles, as well as potential plaintiffs seeking civil damages from such incidents.

Sentiment

There is little recorded debate or voting history available for SB 1755, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from committee testimony or floor votes. Based on the bill’s text and caption, the measure appears to be framed as a liability-protection bill for religious organizations, suggesting a generally supportive policy intent among its sponsor and likely supporters. No opposition is documented in the provided materials.

Contention

The main policy tension in the bill is between protecting religious organizations that use security personnel and preserving civil remedies for people harmed by those security activities. The broad immunity language is notable because it covers intentional acts and firearm use, which could raise concerns among critics about accountability, victim compensation, and the scope of protection afforded to churches and volunteers. Supporters would likely emphasize safety, volunteer participation, and reduced litigation risk for faith-based institutions.