Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.170 (2026)

State preemption

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.

(2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. [1995 s.s. c.1 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2002–2024 · leading case: Doe v. Medford Sch. Dist. 549C, 221 P.3d 787 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Doe v. Medford Sch. Dist. 549C, 221 P.3d 787 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 80× “The scope of that challenge is a narrow one: Plaintiff contends that the school district’s policy violates a statute, ORS 166.170, which she contends legislatively preempts the school district from regulating firearms in any manner.”

Oregon Firearms Educ. Found. v. Bd. of Higher Educ., 264 P.3d 160 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 37× “Petitioner contends that the rule exceeds respondents’ statutory authority, that it is preempted by ORS 166.170, and that it violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Bd. of Cty. Comm. of Columbia Cty. v. Rosenblum, 526 P.3d 798 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 16× “The court also concluded that it was appropriate to reach the merits of the board’s petition, and that the ordinance was preempted by ORS 166.170 and therefore void. Reversed and remanded.”

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. v. City of Madison, 2017 WI 19 (Wis. 2017). · cites it 2× “3 The Medford court reasoned that "the 3 Oregon's Preemption Statute, Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.170 (2) (2016), provides: Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but…”

Starrett v. City of Portland Ex Rel. State, 102 P.3d 728 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “Plaintiffs position is premised on ORS 166.170 and ORS 166.173, which effectively prohibit a city from regulating the carrying of concealed handguns, pursuant to a license, on public property.”

Conrady v. Lincoln Cnty., 316 P.3d 413 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 21× “The question in this case is whether that permit requirement is preempted under state law — more specifically, under ORS 166.170, ORS 166.171, and ORS 166.176, three statutes that concern preemption of local firearms regulation.”

Langlotz v. Noelle, 39 P.3d 271 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “According to plaintiff, the language of subsection (3)(a) is unambiguous, and, if not, all conceivable ambiguity is resolved by its context, in particular by subsection (1), which states that in specified circumstances the sheriff “shall issue” the CHL; by subsection (4), which…”

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. v. City of Madison (Wis. 2017). “3 The Medford court reasoned that "the 3 Oregon's Preemption Statute, Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.170 (2) (2016), provides: Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but…”

Schwartz v. Washington Cnty. (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “170(1) (“Except as expressly authorized by state stat- ute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including…”

State v. Ward, 198 P.3d 443 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “See ORS 166.170(1) (vesting *424 in the Legislative Assembly exclusive authority to regulate firearms “except as expressly authorized by state statute”).”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.170(1) — 9 cases

Doe v. Medford Sch. Dist. 549C, 221 P.3d 787 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “The scope of that challenge is a narrow one: Plaintiff contends that the school district’s policy violates a statute, ORS 166.170, which she contends legislatively preempts the school district from regulating firearms in any manner.”

Oregon Firearms Educ. Found. v. Bd. of Higher Educ., 264 P.3d 160 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “Petitioner contends that the rule exceeds respondents’ statutory authority, that it is preempted by ORS 166.170, and that it violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Bd. of Cty. Comm. of Columbia Cty. v. Rosenblum, 526 P.3d 798 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “The court also concluded that it was appropriate to reach the merits of the board’s petition, and that the ordinance was preempted by ORS 166.170 and therefore void. Reversed and remanded.”

Starrett v. City of Portland Ex Rel. State, 102 P.3d 728 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “Plaintiffs position is premised on ORS 166.170 and ORS 166.173, which effectively prohibit a city from regulating the carrying of concealed handguns, pursuant to a license, on public property.”

Langlotz v. Noelle, 39 P.3d 271 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “According to plaintiff, the language of subsection (3)(a) is unambiguous, and, if not, all conceivable ambiguity is resolved by its context, in particular by subsection (1), which states that in specified circumstances the sheriff “shall issue” the CHL; by subsection (4), which…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.170(2) — 3 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.