Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.175 (2026)

Authority of city to regulate purchase of used firearms

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      166.175 Authority of city to regulate purchase of used firearms. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a city may continue to regulate the purchase of used firearms by pawnshops and secondhand stores.

      (2) As used in this section, “secondhand store” means a store or business whose primary source of revenue is the sale of used merchandise. [1995 s.s. c.1 §6]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1997–2014 · 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 2× “171 through ORS 166.175. 3 As we have discussed, the focus of *55 ORS 166.”
State v. Charlesworth, 951 P.2d 153 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “In summary, we conclude that ORS 166.175(6)(b) includes as racketeering activity only that conduct that 18 USC § 1961 (1)(B), (C) and (D) defined as racketeering activity when ORS 166.”
State v. Kelly, 328 P.3d 757 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “The defendant demurred to the indictment on grounds that, inter alia, it was not sufficiently “definite and certain” because it quoted, essentially verbatim, the text of ORS 166.175(4) in alleging a “pattern of racketeering activity.”
Wayt v. Goff, 956 P.2d 1063 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “, ORS 166.175(4); State v. Zelinka, 130 Or App 464, 471-72 , 882 P2d 624 (1994), rev den 320 Or 508 (1995).”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.175(4): 2 cases
State v. Kelly, 328 P.3d 757 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “The defendant demurred to the indictment on grounds that, inter alia, it was not sufficiently “definite and certain” because it quoted, essentially verbatim, the text of ORS 166.175(4) in alleging a “pattern of racketeering activity.”
Wayt v. Goff, 956 P.2d 1063 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “, ORS 166.175(4); State v. Zelinka, 130 Or App 464, 471-72 , 882 P2d 624 (1994), rev den 320 Or 508 (1995).”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.175(6)(b): 1 case
State v. Charlesworth, 951 P.2d 153 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “In summary, we conclude that ORS 166.175(6)(b) includes as racketeering activity only that conduct that 18 USC § 1961 (1)(B), (C) and (D) defined as racketeering activity when ORS 166.”
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.