What became known as the gun omnibus bill,SB 243 was put forward to the legislature by the Senate Interim Committee on the Judiciary in Oregon's 2025 legislative session. Pursuant toit being signed into law by Governor Tina Kotek on July 24, 2025, and embedded into the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) on August 8, 2025, the new law went into effect on September 26, 2025.With the onus on localities to pass and enactappropriate legislation within the parameters of the language of the law, the City of Portlandseeks to codify its own version of this law. Codification would prohibit bringing even licensed concealed-carry firearms into public buildings where official government meetings occur and where governing agencies have barred their possession by way of local code.Now that state law has laid the groundwork for this to be applied in the city of Portland, we must establish the specific locations where the City seeks to ban firearms.
Official proposal and impact statementShould Portland amend Code related to prohibitions on possession of firearms within certain City buildings to disallow affirmative defense for persons with concealed…
What became known as the gun omnibus bill,SB 243 was put forward to the legislature by the Senate Interim Committee on the Judiciary in Oregon's 2025 legislative session. Pursuant toit being signed into law by Governor Tina Kotek on July 24, 2025, and embedded into the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) on August 8, 2025, the new law went into effect on September 26, 2025.With the onus on localities to pass and enactappropriate legislation within the parameters of the language of the law, the City of Portlandseeks to codify its own version of this law. Codification would prohibit bringing even licensed concealed-carry firearms into public buildings where official government meetings occur and where governing agencies have barred their possession by way of local code.Now that state law has laid the groundwork for this to be applied in the city of Portland, we must establish the specific locations where the City seeks to ban firearms.
Official impact statementSee the official legal title
Amend Code related to prohibitions on possession of firearms within certain City buildings to disallow affirmative defense for persons with concealed handgun licenses (amend Code Sections 3.18.020, 14A.60.010 and 20.12.050)
Should concealed handgun license holders lose the current defense for carrying firearms in specific City buildings used for official meetings?
What this proposal would actually do.
Plain-language orientation first. Every substantive statement below links to its official basis.
The reviewed sources do not clearly identify every existing policy, service, contract, or obligation that would remain unchanged.
Official matter recordThis proposal concerns public safety and requires action through Portland’s public legislative process.
Official matter classification and recordCommunity members affected by this will be limited to only those serving in an official capacity on a City advisory body, and even then, the tangible impacts will be limited to creating/carrying/posting signage barring concealed carry weapons from locations and spaces where advisory bodies operate.
Official community impact statementWhat the record establishes and what it does not.
Votes show choices. They do not, by themselves, prove why a member made that choice.
Recorded · 5–0
Read the exact motion or vote question
Motion to amend the Ordinance directives and Exhibits A, B, and C as shown in Dunphy 2: Moved by Novick and seconded by Smith. (Aye (5): Kanal, Morillo, Zimmerman, Smith, Novick)
We will not turn the roll call into invented arguments.
The vote above establishes who supported or opposed that exact motion. A source-validated account of the competing reasons will appear only after human review of the meeting transcript and documents.
This will apply to three City-owned and managed buildings on a permanent basis, and as a result, we anticipate minimal financial impacts. We can expect small one-time costs for signage creation, but we have not identified any ongoing costs. There are no related MOUs, IGAs, or long-term commitments and it should not require additional staffing or equipment to enact.
Official financial impact statement- The source-linked record has not yet received a human review of competing arguments. A yes or no vote alone does not establish a Councilor’s rationale.
- What amendments, conditions, or new evidence could change the proposal before final action?
Check the official Council agenda for current testimony instructions and deadlines; this guide is not official testimony.
Official Council agendaInspect the complete research record.
Official text, source files, exact motions, roll calls, provenance, and the technical completeness check remain available without crowding the explanation above.
Official documents8 sources
The proposed legal text currently moving through Council.
Open at Portland.govShow 2 more documents
Read the full official text
The City of Portland ordains.Section 1. The Council finds:Oregon lawmakers passed Senate Bill (SB) 243 in June 2025 (effective September 26, 2025), also known as the Community Safety Firearms Act. In its relevant portions, SB 243 amended ORS 166.370(1)(b) and ORS 166.377(3) to revest back into the hands of local governments local control over regulations of firearms in their communities.SB 243 allowed local governments to decide whether to continue the exception for persons who have valid concealed handgun permits to possess firearms in public buildings used for official meetings of that local government.Gun violence poses a safety risk in all spaces. Across the United States, various locations where public officials and the community meetings have become targets of or venues for gun violence have become targets or venues for gun violence. Fear of violence and uncertainty of one's safety can contribute to uncertainty that healthy civil discourse can occur in the public venue. Political violence is also on the rise across the United States, constituting a serious risk to the safety of government officials, city employees, and members of the community who facilitate and attend public meetings in these spaces. In its September 2025 meeting, the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners found that the presence of firearms in public buildings, even when carried by individuals with a conceal handgun license, can contribute to a culture of fear, undermine trust and feeling of safety with the community, as well as increase the risk of accidental discharge, intimidation, or escalation during conflicts. Council concurs.Public officials, city staff and members of the community who gather in public meeting locations are entitled to all possible protections from gun violence in these spaces. The City is committed to ensuring that attendance and participation at official meetings held in buildings owned or controlled by the City can be as safe and welcoming as possible. Loaded and unloaded firearms are already prohibited in City buildings under several existing Code Sections 3.18.020.B.6, 14A.60.010.C, 14A.60.010D, and 20.12.050. Through the Code amendments shown in the accompanying Exhibits, the City's policy is that the affirmative defense in ORS 166.370(3)(g), for persons with concealed handguns licenses under ORS 166.291 and 166.292, will no longer apply to their possession of firearms in certain buildings used for City official meetings.As required by SB 243, the City will post clearly visible signs at all normal points of entry to the buildings and will post notice of the City's website identifying all buildings subject to this policy. The City Administrator is expected to implement the code amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council directs:Amend City Code Section 3.18.020 as shown in Exhibit A.Amend City Code Section 14A.60.010 as shown in Exhibit BAmend City Code Section 20.12.050 as shown in Exhibit C.
Meetings, motions, amendments, and votes5 meetings · 3 votes
Recorded amendments
Motion to amend the Ordinance directives and Exhibits A, B, and C as shown in Dunphy 2: Moved by Novick and seconded by Smith. (Aye (5): Kanal, Morillo, Zimmerman, Smith, Novick)
Motion to amend Exhibit C in the Ordinance as shown in Councilor Dunphy 1: Moved by Kanal and seconded by Novick. (Aye (5): Kanal, Morillo, Zimmerman, Smith, Novick)
Read all 3 exact motions
Motion to amend the Ordinance directives and Exhibits A, B, and C as shown in Dunphy 2: Moved by Novick and seconded by Smith. (Aye (5): Kanal, Morillo, Zimmerman, Smith, Novick)
Motion to lay the item, document number 2026-123, on the table: Moved by Zimmerman and seconded by Smith. (Aye (3): Kanal, Zimmerman, Smith; Nay (2): Morillo, Novick)
Motion to amend Exhibit C in the Ordinance as shown in Councilor Dunphy 1: Moved by Kanal and seconded by Novick. (Aye (5): Kanal, Morillo, Zimmerman, Smith, Novick)
Meeting-level motion or recommendation · Sep 15, 20265 yes
Motion to amend the Ordinance directives and Exhibits A, B, and C as shown in Dunphy 2: Moved by Novick and seconded by Smith. (Aye (5): Kanal, Morillo, Zimmerman, Smith, Novick)
Meeting-level motion or recommendation · Sep 15, 20263 yes · 2 no
Motion to lay the item, document number 2026-123, on the table: Moved by Zimmerman and seconded by Smith. (Aye (3): Kanal, Zimmerman, Smith; Nay (2): Morillo, Novick)
Meeting-level motion or recommendation · Jun 16, 20265 yes
Motion to amend Exhibit C in the Ordinance as shown in Councilor Dunphy 1: Moved by Kanal and seconded by Novick. (Aye (5): Kanal, Morillo, Zimmerman, Smith, Novick)
Data quality, timeline, and provenanceRules v2
Unreviewed keyword matches and machine-extracted fragments are not presented as authoritative findings. Only 0 human-reviewed findings are available for this matter.
Technical information-completeness check · Ready With Caveats
This checks whether decision-relevant categories appear in the published packet. It does not recommend approval or opposition.
The official title and operative text identify the requested action.
Official text was found. This check does not certify that every referenced exhibit is complete.
The official impact statement includes financial information.
The impact statement explicitly leaves one or more funding sources unresolved.
7 linked supporting documents found; presence alone does not verify their internal completeness.
The text references exhibits. This guide has not yet automatically verified that each referenced exhibit is present, populated, and internally consistent.
The reviewed action is not expressly identified as a non-binding agreement.
A direction, reporting requirement, or deadline appears in the official text.
Stability requires at least two observed snapshots; the system will update this after another ingestion.
- First discovered
- Aug 13, 2026, 12:27 PM PDT
- Last checked
- Sep 15, 2026, 11:07 AM PDT
- Evidence hash
- bb2334a3b465b208
- Guide status
- Deterministic baseline
- Council Action
Tabled
- SOURCE UPDATED
Continued as amended on August 4, 2026 by Community and Public Safety Committee
- DOCUMENT PUBLISHED
Continued as amended on August 4, 2026 by Community and Public Safety Committee
- Council Action
Continued as amended
- Council Action
Continued as amended
- Council Action
Continued as amended
- Council Action
Continued