Health Department issues old tattoos, piercing regulations, causes confusion
July 4, 2023
When Sarah and Randall Randerson saw an email from the Oklahoma State Department of Health, they immediately worried.
Their business, Thunderdome Tattoo in Edmond, has always been up to code, Sarah said, so if a regulatory entity is reaching out, something must be wrong.
“We were wondering where this had come from. What happened? Who got in trouble?” she said.
The Health Department’s email sent June 23 sought to “clarify requirements and prohibitions from Title 21 Section 842.3,” the email states. However, the email includes statutes that were revoked from the law almost 20 years ago.
In the four years their shop has been open, it was the first time the Randersons had heard of the regulations mentioned in the email.
All other tattoo and body piercing licenses across Oklahoma received the same message, and its contents left artists like the Randersons scrambling and worried about how they might keep their businesses afloat.
more:Oklahoma’s abortion ban drove thousands of state women to Kansas, Colorado
Oklahoma’s history with tattoo regulation
Oklahoma banned tattooing in 1963 and was the last state in the nation to legalize the practice in 2006. Since then, laws were written to regulate the practice.
The statute mentioned in the email that licensees find concerning is Oklahoma State Title 21 Section 842.3, which was partially declared unconstitutional.
The statute lists various regulations for tattoo artists and body piercers, including two provisions that were deemed unconstitutional in 2007 by a district court judge:
- a prohibition against body piercers and tattoo artists from having a shop within 1,000 feet of a school, church or playground.
- a requirement for all body piercers and tattoo operators to obtain a surety bond of $100,000.
In February 2007, about three months after tattooing was legalized in Oklahoma, Tony Garcia, owner of A Different Image Tattoo and Art Studio, petitioned for declaratory judgment after his application was denied the month prior because his shop was located within 1,000 feet of a school and he could not post a $100,000 surety bond.
more:Marijuana businesses sue to block new fees that will cost the industry millions of dollars
In the court documents, Garcia called the regulations unfair, unreasonable and unconstitutional.
On May 14, 2007, District Court Judge Daniel Owens sided with Garcia and permanently enjoined the Health Department from enforcing the rules.
What does this mean for Oklahoma’s tattoo shops?
The intention of the email, said Erica Rankin-Riley, the department’s public information officer, was to reinforce the two injuncted regulations, but only for new license holders.
The department also is enforcing body piercing or tattoo operators applying for a license to publish notices of their applications at least once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation nearest to the proposed location of the business. The email from the Health Department states applications submitted on or after July 1 must be in compliance with the requirements.
“As we continue to evaluate existing laws as it ensures to new license holders, we will work with applicants and establishments to share any clarification or additional guidance,” Rankin-Riley said.
However, these statutes could affect current licenses as they apply to renew licenses each year. And if that’s the case, shops will need to obtain a $100,000 surety bond.
Surety bond requirements surprises shop owners
Matt Gibson, owner of the tattoo shop Black Magic, remembers when the court deemed the two regulations unconstitutional. It was about the same time he had opened up his shop about 18 years ago. He was confused when he first received a recent letter informing him he would need to obtain a $100,000 surety bond, whether he could afford to afford the expense.
To keep his shop afloat and his tattoo artists employed, Gibson said he’d be willing to take out a loan.
“We’re just here to make sure that we can still tattoo and still feed our families,” Gibson said.
Sabrina DeQuaise, Tony Garcia’s former assistant during the time of the 2007 litigation process, began reaching out to the Health Department, trying to figure out the situation after she heard the news.
She said she believes the Health Department might have newer staff who don’t understand the history of the tattooing and body piercing industry.
“A surety bond can be an expense that can put a shop out of business,” DeQuaise said. “I understand that we do need to have regulations about that sort of thing, and certainly we wouldn’t want a tattoo shop right next door to a school or whatever, mostly just because kids don’t get tattoos, but it is concerning in that also continues to increase the stigma around our industry.”
Can the injuncted regulations be enforced?
Oklahoma City attorney Brian Ted Jones, who was alerted to the regulations emailed, said on Twitter that he was “digging into this letter the Health Department sent to tattoo and body piercing licensees.”
In a later interview with The Oklahoman, Jones said that unless the Health Department asked the court to revisit the original injunction, if it attempted to enforce the injuncted requirements, an affected licensee could use the original 2007 court case to leverage against the department.
“If an agency seeks to do something that it’s been prohibited from doing, maybe it still takes that step of trying to do that, but the licensees that it’s attempting to do that would have a remedy back at the original district court that still has the case,” Jones said.
He said if a person or entity disobeys court orders, it could lead to a charge of indirect contempt.
What’s next?
Ranklin-Riley said the Health Department continues to assess the 2007 court order and the applicability of relevant statutes to new applicants and locations. She said the effective date of all changes has been moved to Nov. 1 to provide time to clarify ongoing regulatory guidance.
“This will allow sufficient time for continued assessment, and allow new applicants and/or new locations additional time to prepare for persistent regulatory requirements,” Ranklin-Riley said. “OSDH’s overarching goals remain compliance with applicable statutes, concise regulatory guidance and protecting the public health of all Oklahomans.”
She said the Health Department will provide additional information and guidance to applicants and license holders as it completes its review.