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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.382 (2026)

Possession of destructive device prohibited; exceptions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      166.382 Possession of destructive device prohibited; exceptions. (1) A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a destructive device if the person possesses:

      (a) Any of the following devices with an explosive, incendiary or poison gas component:

      (A) Bomb;

      (B) Grenade;

      (C) Rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces;

      (D) Missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce; or

      (E) Mine; or

      (b) Any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in paragraph (a) of this subsection and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.

      (2) As used in this section:

      (a) “Destructive device” does not include any device which is designed primarily or redesigned primarily for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety or similar device.

      (b) “Possess” has the meaning given that term in ORS 161.015.

      (3) This section does not apply to:

      (a) Persons who possess explosives as provided in ORS 480.200 to 480.290.

      (b) The possession of an explosive by a member of the Armed Forces of the United States while on active duty and engaged in the performance of official duties or by a member of a regularly organized fire or police department of a public agency while engaged in the performance of official duties.

      (c) The possession of an explosive in the course of transportation by way of railroad, water, highway or air while under the jurisdiction of, or in conformity with, regulations adopted by the United States Department of Transportation.

      (d) The possession, sale, transfer or manufacture of an explosive by a person acting in accordance with the provisions of any applicable federal law or regulation that provides substantially the same requirements as the comparable provisions of ORS 480.200 to 480.290.

      (4) Possession of a destructive device is a Class C felony. [1989 c.982 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2022 · leading case: State v. Luers, 153 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Luers, 153 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 13× “325; two counts of unlawful possession of a destructive device, ORS 166.382; two counts of unlawful manufacture of a destructive device, ORS 166.”
State v. J. N. S., 308 P.3d 1112 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 8× “215, and that the juvenile court did not correctly apply the definition of destructive device in analyzing whether youth engaged in conduct that, if committed by an adult, would constitute unlawful possession of a destructive device, ORS 166.382, and unlawful manufacture of a…”
United States v. Floyd Lovell Fish, 368 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 2004). · cites it 6× “In setting Fish’s base offense level at 20, the district court concluded that Fish’s prior conviction for violation of Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.382 , which prohibits the “unlawful possession of a destructive device,” constituted a “crime of violence” pursuant to United States…”
State v. Nickles, 451 P.3d 624 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 5× “382, assigning error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that the state failed to ade- quately corroborate his confession, and, therefore, the confession was not suf- ficient to warrant conviction.”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Garrett, 91 P.3d 830 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “384, which provides, in part: “(1) A person commits the crime of unlawful manufacture of a destructive device if the person assembles, produces or otherwise manufactures: “(a) A destructive device, as defined in ORS 166.382 [.]” A “destructive device” is defined to include,…”
State v. Bluel, 397 P.3d 497 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 13× “That statute provides, in part, that “[a] person commits the crime of unlawful manufacture of a destructive device if the person assembles, produces or otherwise manufactures *** [a] destructive device, as defined in ORS 166.382[.]” In turn, ORS 166.382 defines the crime of…”
State v. Harrington, 211 P.3d 972 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “894, and unlawful possession of a destructive device, ORS 166.382. He assigns error to the trial court’s denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal on the robbery charge and to the imposition of restitution in the amount of $5,843.”
State v. Bush, 25 P.3d 368 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “270 (counts VII through XII); and three counts of unlawful possession of a destructive device, ORS 166.382 (counts XTV through XVI). Defendant argues that the search warrant used to obtain evidence against him did not include sufficient information to distinguish his property…”
State v. Vinh Ba Nguyen, 212 P.3d 1284 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “ORS 166.382. Similarly, if the evidence on the ground nearby was burglary tools, it would be objectively reasonable to become suspicious that one or more of defendant's group had been in possession of burglary tools.”
State v. Custer, 868 P.2d 1363 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “992 (4)(b); ORS 166.382(1)(b); ORS 166.250(1)(b). He claims that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress evidence seized during an inventory of the car that he was driving when he was arrested.”
State v. Custer, 934 P.2d 455 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “992(4)(b); ORS 166.382(1)(b). He argues that the trial court erred when, following remand from this court, State v.”
State v. Gillispie, 436 P.3d 65 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “118, and possession of a destructive device, ORS 166.382. After the trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress, he entered a conditional guilty plea to both charges while reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.382(1) — 3 cases
State v. Luers, 153 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “325; two counts of unlawful possession of a destructive device, ORS 166.382; two counts of unlawful manufacture of a destructive device, ORS 166.”
State v. Nickles, 451 P.3d 624 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “382, assigning error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that the state failed to ade- quately corroborate his confession, and, therefore, the confession was not suf- ficient to warrant conviction.”
State v. Johnson, 280 P.3d 1026 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.382(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Johnson, 280 P.3d 1026 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.382(1)(a)(A) — 1 case
State v. Johnson, 280 P.3d 1026 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.382(1)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Custer, 868 P.2d 1363 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “992 (4)(b); ORS 166.382(1)(b); ORS 166.250(1)(b). He claims that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress evidence seized during an inventory of the car that he was driving when he was arrested.”
State v. Custer, 934 P.2d 455 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “992(4)(b); ORS 166.382(1)(b). He argues that the trial court erred when, following remand from this court, State v.”
State v. Johnson, 280 P.3d 1026 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.382(2) — 1 case
State v. Bluel, 397 P.3d 497 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “That statute provides, in part, that “[a] person commits the crime of unlawful manufacture of a destructive device if the person assembles, produces or otherwise manufactures *** [a] destructive device, as defined in ORS 166.382[.]” In turn, ORS 166.382 defines the crime of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.382(2)(a) — 3 cases
State v. J. N. S., 308 P.3d 1112 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “215, and that the juvenile court did not correctly apply the definition of destructive device in analyzing whether youth engaged in conduct that, if committed by an adult, would constitute unlawful possession of a destructive device, ORS 166.382, and unlawful manufacture of a…”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Garrett, 91 P.3d 830 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “384, which provides, in part: “(1) A person commits the crime of unlawful manufacture of a destructive device if the person assembles, produces or otherwise manufactures: “(a) A destructive device, as defined in ORS 166.382 [.]” A “destructive device” is defined to include,…”
State v. Bluel, 397 P.3d 497 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “That statute provides, in part, that “[a] person commits the crime of unlawful manufacture of a destructive device if the person assembles, produces or otherwise manufactures *** [a] destructive device, as defined in ORS 166.382[.]” In turn, ORS 166.382 defines the crime of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.382(3)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Bluel, 397 P.3d 497 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “That statute provides, in part, that “[a] person commits the crime of unlawful manufacture of a destructive device if the person assembles, produces or otherwise manufactures *** [a] destructive device, as defined in ORS 166.382[.]” In turn, ORS 166.382 defines the crime of…”
State v. Johnson, 280 P.3d 1026 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.382(l)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Luers, 153 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “325; two counts of unlawful possession of a destructive device, ORS 166.382; two counts of unlawful manufacture of a destructive device, ORS 166.”
State v. Johnson, 280 P.3d 1026 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.382(l)(a)(A) — 3 cases
State v. J. N. S., 308 P.3d 1112 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “215, and that the juvenile court did not correctly apply the definition of destructive device in analyzing whether youth engaged in conduct that, if committed by an adult, would constitute unlawful possession of a destructive device, ORS 166.382, and unlawful manufacture of a…”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Garrett, 91 P.3d 830 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “384, which provides, in part: “(1) A person commits the crime of unlawful manufacture of a destructive device if the person assembles, produces or otherwise manufactures: “(a) A destructive device, as defined in ORS 166.382 [.]” A “destructive device” is defined to include,…”
State v. Johnson, 280 P.3d 1026 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
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.