Ok, first off, I know and most of us know that Portland, Beaverton, Salem, Independence, Tigard and Oregon city have ordinances in place that prohibit carry of a loaded magazine or firearm within city limits, without a concealed handgun license. Effectively ending open carry for those that don't possess a CHL in those cities. I have a license, so it doesn't matter for me, but for others I was reading through the ORS, as it's one of the things I do in my sparetime to understand the laws better. I read this, ORS 166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly. (2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. [1995 s.s. c.1 §1] This was brought up a while back about the port of portland making it illegal to carry a handgun on you in the airport terminal before you hit the security checkpoints and were on federal land as well as any other place under the port of portland's jurisdiction. It got overturned as their ordinance was illegal according to that section of Oregon law. Wouldn't this actually mean that those ordinances that restrict where ammunition can be carried is actually illegal by Oregon law, is null and void, and therefore cannot be enforced as Oregon law specifically says that those laws ordinances cannot be made in the first place? So as I understand it, unless it is written in Oregon legislature somewhere that expressly allows those cities to enact those ordinances, that those and I quote, "Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void." Also I searched in there for names of either of the cities to see if it was in there, and it's not. So thoughts?