Okla. Stat. » Title 21 — CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1289.3 (2026)

Definitions for Firearms Act and Self-Defense Act —

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Pistols or handguns. DEFINITIONS FOR FIREARMS ACT

"Pistols" or "handguns" as used in the Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971 and the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act shall mean any firearm capable of discharging single or multiple projectiles from a single round of ammunition composed of any material which may reasonably be expected to be able to cause lethal injury, with a barrel or barrels less than sixteen (16) inches in length, and using a combustible propellant charge, but not to include any firearm with an overall length of twenty-six (26) inches or more, flare guns, underwater fishing guns or blank pistols. Added by Laws 1971, c. 159, § 3, emerg. eff. May 24, 1971. Amended by Laws 1995, c. 272, § 41, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Laws 2017, c. 13, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2017; Laws 2019, c. 63, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2019.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: Hunnicutt v. State, 755 P.2d 105 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hunnicutt v. State, 755 P.2d 105 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “1985); 21 O.S.1981, § 1289.3. For these reasons, Counts III and IV must be reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss.”
Dilworth v. State, 611 P.2d 256 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980). “II The appellant next argues that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the statutory definition of a pistol, contained in 21 O.S.1971, § 1289.3. A careful reading of the transcript fails to reveal that the question was at issue.”
Wimberly v. State, 698 P.2d 27 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Appellant looks to the definition of a pistol set out in 21 O.S.1981, § 1289.3: [A]ny firearm capable of discharging a projectile composed of any material which may reasonably be expected to be able to cause lethal injury.”
ConocoPhillips Co. v. Henry, 520 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (N.D. Okla. 2007). “See Okla. Stat. tit. 21, §§ 1289.3 , 1289.4, 1289.”
Thompson v. State, 488 P.2d 944 (Okla. Crim. App. 1971). “” 21 O.S.1971, § 1289.3. “Lethal” is defined as deadly, mortal, fatal.”
Sims v. State, 762 P.2d 270 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988). “More recently, this Court followed the long-standing interpretation, stating that “pistol,” as defined by the legislature in 21 O.S.1981, § 1289.3, *273 is “any firearm capable of discharging a projectile composed of any material which may reasonably be expected to be able to…”
Bolton v. State, 702 P.2d 1040 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985). “On appeal, Bolton first contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the weapon was in fact a “pistol” as defined by 21 O.S.1981, § 1289.3, i.e., that it was “capable of discharging a projectile .”
Coleman v. State, 506 P.2d 558 (Okla. Crim. App. 1972). “) See 21 O.S.1971, § 1289.3. Such definition conforms strongly to the prevailing case law in the various states now and at the time of the offense charged in the information, September 13, 1970.”
McWilliams v. State, 743 P.2d 666 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987). “The existence of a pistol, as defined in 21 O.S.1981, § 1289.3, is consequently a question of fact for the jury to decide, as noted in the jury instructions given.”
Jenkins v. Bridges (10th Cir. 2025). · cites it 2× “Petitioner argues that he could not have been convicted of firearm possession because the gun the police found was “inoperable” and “not capable of firing,” which fails to meet the relevant statute’s definition of a firearm as being “any firearm capable of discharging single or…”
State v. Diaz, 2025 OK CR 2 (Okla. Crim. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “" Thompson , 1971 OK CR 328 See also 21 O.S.Supp.2019, § 1289.3 not BB guns or unaltered air pistols.”
Jenkins v. Nunn (N.D. Okla. 2024). “Analysis and conclusion Jenkins claims, as he did on direct appeal, that the State did not present sufficient evidence to support the firearm conviction because “[t]he State failed to prove that [he] possessed a gun” and Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1289.3 “shows that the definition…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.