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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.450 (2026)

Obliteration or change of identification number on firearms

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

      166.450 Obliteration or change of identification number on firearms. Any person who intentionally alters, removes or obliterates the identification number of any firearm for an unlawful purpose, shall be punished upon conviction by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for not more than five years. Possession of any such firearm is presumptive evidence that the possessor has altered, removed or obliterated the identification number. [Amended by 1987 c.320 §90; 1989 c.839 §24]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2023 · leading case: State v. Alvarado, 307 P.3d 540 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Alvarado, 307 P.3d 540 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 20× “Defendant appeals his convictions for unlawful obliteration of the identification number on a firearm, ORS 166.450, and unlawful possession of a firearm, ORS 166.”
State v. Miller, 401 P.3d 229 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “220; obliteration or change of identification number on firearms (Count 4), ORS 166.450; failure to perform the duties of a driver when property is damaged (Count 5), ORS 811.”
State v. Craigen, 524 P.3d 85 (Or. 2023). “220; obliteration or change of identification num- ber on a firearm, ORS 166.450; and three counts of reckless endangering, ORS 163.”
State v. Briney, 200 P.3d 550 (Or. 2008). “429 (amended 1989) (Class B felony to ship, transport, receive, sell or otherwise furnishes any “firearm” to another knowing that the weapon will be used in furtherance of a felony); ORS 166.450 (amended 1989) (unlawful to intentionally alter, remove, or obliterate…”
State v. Corona, 655 P.2d 216 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “ORS 166.450. The third and fourth charges were merged for purposes of sentencing.”
State v. Craigen, 432 P.3d 274 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “And, when asked whether he would "take back what happened to" the victim if he could, defendant responded that it "would be hard to answer that question," under the circumstance. Defendant was charged with, among other things, murder ( ORS 163.”
State v. Craigen, 489 P.3d 1071 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “Ulery, 366 Or 500 , 464 P3d 1123 (2020), defendant filed a supplemental brief requesting that we reverse his conviction on Count 5, oblit- eration or change of identification number on firearm, ORS 166.450, because that conviction was based on a nonunani- mous verdict.”
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.