Oregon Revised Statutes
Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.240 (2026)
Carrying of concealed weapons
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
166.240 Carrying of concealed weapons. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, any person who carries concealed upon the person any knife having a blade that projects or swings into position by force of a spring or by centrifugal force, any dirk, dagger, ice pick, slungshot, metal knuckles, or any similar instrument by the use of which injury could be inflicted upon the person or property of any other person, commits a Class B misdemeanor.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section applies to any peace officer as defined in ORS 133.005, whose duty it is to serve process or make arrests. Justice courts have concurrent jurisdiction to try any person charged with violating any of the provisions of subsection (1) of this section. [Amended by 1977 c.454 §1; 1985 c.543 §2; 1989 c.839 §21; 1999 c.1040 §15]
166.245 [1989 c.839 §38; repealed by 1995 s.s. c.1 §7]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 103
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1966–2025 · leading case: State v. Ruff, 211 P.3d 277 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Ruff, 211 P.3d 277 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “or any similar instrument' as required to violate * * * ORS 166.240, Carrying a Concealed Weapon.”
State v. Brown, 497 P.2d 1191 (Or. 1972). “ORS 166.240 provides: "(1) Any person who carries concealed about his person in any manner, any revolver, pistol, or other firearm, * * * shall be punished upon conviction by a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $200, or by imprisonment in the county jail not less than five…”
State v. Crumal, 633 P.2d 1313 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “That contention is that a weapon concealed in a vehicle, rather than on defendant’s person, is not concealed "about his person” within the meaning of ORS 166.240. We agree with that contention and reverse.”
State v. Pruett, 586 P.2d 800 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). “" The statutory construction which the judge apparently had in mind is that ORS 166.240 specifically prohibits the concealed carrying of a dirk or dagger, and a pocketknife with a locking blade is the effective equivalent of a dagger.”
State v. Ramirez, 468 P.3d 1006 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea reserving his right to seek appellate review of the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress.”
State v. Nelson, 330 P.3d 644 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “Defendant was convicted of one count of carrying a concealed weapon, ORS 166.240, after police discovered a knife with a three-and-a-half-inch blade hanging from a chain around his neck.”
State v. Miller, 422 P.3d 240 (Or. 2018). “In response to that question, defendant disclosed that he was carrying a knife, which led to his conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, ORS 166.240(1). Defendant contends that the officer's question unlawfully extended the stop because, the officer lacked an objectively…”
State v. Turner, 191 P.3d 697 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “ORS 166.240. 1 The issue on appeal is whether the officer stopped defendant without reasonable suspicion to believe that defendant was carrying a concealed weapon.”
State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113 (Wis. 2003). “The court reached this decision despite the absence of any express exception in Oregon's CCW statute to this effect, See Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.240 (2001), and despite Oregon's permit system under which persons may apply to carry a concealed weapon, see Or.”
State v. Harris, 594 P.2d 1318 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “The state appeals from an order of the trial court sustaining defendant's demurrer to a charging instrument accusing defendant of violating ORS 166.240 by carrying a "knife, other than an ordinary pocketknife" concealed about his person.”
State v. Lowry, 667 P.2d 996 (Or. 1983). “[10] ORS 166.240 prohibits the carrying of various weapons concealed about one's person.”
City of Portland v. Lodi, 782 P.2d 415 (Or. 1989). “Former ORS 166.240(1), a misdemeanor section which did not require that a defendant intend unlawful use, included knives in its proscription of concealed weapons but excepted an “ordinary pocketknife.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.240(1) — 37 cases
State v. Ruff, 211 P.3d 277 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “or any similar instrument' as required to violate * * * ORS 166.240, Carrying a Concealed Weapon.”
State v. Miller, 422 P.3d 240 (Or. 2018). “In response to that question, defendant disclosed that he was carrying a knife, which led to his conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, ORS 166.240(1). Defendant contends that the officer's question unlawfully extended the stop because, the officer lacked an objectively…”
State v. Pruett, 586 P.2d 800 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). “" The statutory construction which the judge apparently had in mind is that ORS 166.240 specifically prohibits the concealed carrying of a dirk or dagger, and a pocketknife with a locking blade is the effective equivalent of a dagger.”
State v. Crumal, 633 P.2d 1313 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “That contention is that a weapon concealed in a vehicle, rather than on defendant’s person, is not concealed "about his person” within the meaning of ORS 166.240. We agree with that contention and reverse.”
State v. Brown, 497 P.2d 1191 (Or. 1972). “ORS 166.240 provides: "(1) Any person who carries concealed about his person in any manner, any revolver, pistol, or other firearm, * * * shall be punished upon conviction by a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $200, or by imprisonment in the county jail not less than five…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.240(l) — 1 case
City of Portland v. Lodi, 767 P.2d 108 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
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.