SB 585 Ends state preemption over local gun ban ordinances

SB 585 VOTE:NO –  Died In Committee
Status (overview) of bill:

This bill would have repealed ORS 166.170 through 166.176, which are the Oregon statutes that allow only the state to restrict the “sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use” of firearms (referred to as “preemption”), and not cities, counties or school districts.

Personal Choice and Responsibility
The restrictions this would repeal prevent cities, counties, and schools from banning possession of concealed carry even by those with concealed handgun licenses. These entities would then impose such restrictions (in fact 2021 SB 554 expressly allows it), creating a “patchwork” of areas where it is legal to carry and where it is not. A citizen would thus never know where they could legally carry and whether they might be in violation of some local ordinance and would be forced to not carry at all. This would not improve safety, as people with concealed carry licenses have gone through extensive background checks and have proven they are no threat to anyone. They commit crimes at a rate lower than police officers. Further, this would lead to the loss of innocent life as these people would be unable to protect themselves from violent criminals who carry without licenses or even the legal right to possess weapons. This bill says nothing about preventing criminals from being armed. They always will be. This would lead to even more loss of life, as concealed carriers would be not only unable to protect themselves but others around them as they so often do. For example, see the Titusville FLA back to school event in August 2018 where a concealed carrier immediately stopped a gunman who otherwise would have killed many children.

Limited Government
Repealing the restrictions in ORS 166.170-176 would lead to many cities, counties, and school districts unwittingly creating an atmosphere where it is easier to commit murder by instituting a patchwork of restrictions on possession of protection.

Local Control
We are in favor of “local control” – deferring to local government wherever possible rather than state or federal government. But the U.S. Constitution, where there is a conflict, supersedes all and in the protection of rights enumerated in the bill of rights, must be the deciding factor. Courts across the nation have been consistently finding that it unconstitutional for states or localities to ban carry by those who can legally possess firearms. They can restrict the manner, but cannot ban possession entirely as carrying is what is referred to as “bear” in the “keep and bear” in the 2nd Amendment.


  1. Lynn Bryant DeSpain says:

    Under our Constitutional Bill of Rights, Second Amendment, “The Right to Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.” The “Bill of Rights” was added to our Constitution not to protect us from one another, but rather to “Protect the People From The Government.” Those with a “Concealed Carry Permit” have passed extensive background checks, gone through intensive training, and are the most immediate “Protection between Innocent Citizens and those Who Would Do Them Harm.” These Citizens with “Permits, Training and Weapons, already have a great amount of resources invested without being ” Punished and Burdened ” with additional Taxes and Fees.

  2. arden ray says:

    This bill revokes ORS 166.170 to .176 which gave the legislature total concealed carry regulating power. This bill would distribute regulating power to new entities, making going around town as a concealed carrier very confusing. Many Oregonians would just give up their right to carry.

No tags for this post.

Comments are closed.