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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.384 (2026)

Unlawful manufacture of destructive device

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

      166.384 Unlawful manufacture of destructive device. (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; or

      (b) A pyrotechnic device containing two or more grains of pyrotechnic charge in violation of chapter 10, Title 18 of the United States Code.

      (2) Unlawful manufacture of a destructive device is a Class C felony. [1989 c.982 §2]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2004–2017 · 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 5× “382; two counts of unlawful manufacture of a destructive device, ORS 166.384; one count of criminal mischief in the first degree, ORS 164.”
State v. J. N. S., 308 P.3d 1112 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 5× “382, and unlawful manufacture of a destructive device, ORS 166.384. Therefore, we (1) reverse the judgment finding youth within the jurisdiction of the court for second-degree burglary and remand for entry of a judgment finding youth within the jurisdiction of the court for…”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Garrett, 91 P.3d 830 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “ORS 166.384. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed a “destructive device.”
State v. Bluel, 397 P.3d 497 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “As mentioned, defendant was charged with two counts of unlawful manufacture of a destructive device, which is defined by ORS 166.384. That statute provides, in part, that “[a] person commits the crime of unlawful manufacture of a destructive device if the person assembles,…”
State v. Oxford, 403 P.3d 528 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “270, unlawful manufacture of a destructive device, ORS 166.384, and unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.384(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Bluel, 397 P.3d 497 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “As mentioned, defendant was charged with two counts of unlawful manufacture of a destructive device, which is defined by ORS 166.384. That statute provides, in part, that “[a] person commits the crime of unlawful manufacture of a destructive device if the person assembles,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.384(l)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Luers, 153 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “382; two counts of unlawful manufacture of a destructive device, ORS 166.384; one count of criminal mischief in the first degree, ORS 164.”
State v. J. N. S., 308 P.3d 1112 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “382, and unlawful manufacture of a destructive device, ORS 166.384. Therefore, we (1) reverse the judgment finding youth within the jurisdiction of the court for second-degree burglary and remand for entry of a judgment finding youth within the jurisdiction of the court for…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.384(l)(b) — 1 case
State v. J. N. S., 308 P.3d 1112 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “382, and unlawful manufacture of a destructive device, ORS 166.384. Therefore, we (1) reverse the judgment finding youth within the jurisdiction of the court for second-degree burglary and remand for entry of a judgment finding youth within the jurisdiction of the court for…”
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.