dealer licensed in another state - Purchases in Oklahoma by residents of other states. A. Residents of the State of Oklahoma may purchase rifles, shotguns, ammunition, cartridge and shotgun shell handloading components and equipment from a dealer licensed in a state other than Oklahoma. This authorization is enacted in conformance with the provisions of Section 922(b)(3) of Title 18 of the United States Code and provided further that such residents conform to the provisions of law applicable to such purchase in the State of Oklahoma and the state in which the purchase is made. B. Residents of a state other than Oklahoma may purchase rifles, shotguns, ammunition, cartridge and shotgun shell handloading components and equipment from a dealer licensed in the State of Oklahoma. This authorization is enacted in conformance with the provisions of Section 922(b)(3) of Title 18 of the United States Code and provided further that such residents conform to the provisions of law applicable to such purchase in the State of Oklahoma and in the state in which such persons reside. Added by Laws 1969, c. 230, § 1, emerg. eff. April 21, 1969. Amended by Laws 2009, c. 66, § 1, emerg. eff. April 20, 2009.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 1980–2014 · leading case:
Jones v. State, 128 P.3d 521 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006).
Jones v. State, 128 P.3d 521 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006).
“7(B) (Count 1); Possession of a Firearm after Conviction of a Felony, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.1998, § 1288 (Count 2); and, Conspiracy to Commit a Felony, in violation of 21 O.”
Courtney v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 722 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2013).
“The district court concluded Courtney’s arrest was supported by probable cause that Courtney violated Oklahoma’s felon-in-possession statute, *1226 Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1288, or, in the alternative, Oklahoma’s obstruction of justice statute, Okla.”
State v. Farthing, 2014 OK CR 4 (Okla. Crim. App. 2014).
“21 O.S.Supp.2005, § 1288(A). As this language controlled our decision in Marr, these statutory amendments effectively supersede the decision and it cannot now control our determination.”
State v. Humphrey, 620 P.2d 408 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980).
“It is clear that this Court did not hold in Bowen that the proximity of the defendant to the pistol was sufficient to constitute a “carrying on the person” as prohibited by 21 O.S.1971, § 1288. Additional evidence was present which supported the inference that the defendant in…”
Wolf v. State, 292 P.3d 512 (Okla. Crim. App. 2012).
“2d 381 (interpreting elements of "knowing" and "willfully" in offense of carrying a firearm after former conviction of a felony as set forth in 21 O.S.1971, § 1288). 115 The statute is constitutional on its face.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1288(A) — 1 case
State v. Farthing, 2014 OK CR 4 (Okla. Crim. App. 2014).
“21 O.S.Supp.2005, § 1288(A). As this language controlled our decision in Marr, these statutory amendments effectively supersede the decision and it cannot now control our determination.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.