SB 243 Proposes New Firearm Regulations with Minimum $14.7 Million Price Tag

By Rebecca Wallis

Salem, OR — May 6, 2025

In the heart of Oregon’s 2025 legislative session, Senate Bill 243 has emerged as a significant proposal, introducing a slate of new firearm regulations that could reshape the lives of gun owners, taxpayers, and local governments. With a minimum estimated cost of $14.7 million in the 2025–27 biennium, the bill, now titled the Oregon Suicide Prevention and Community Safety Firearms Act, claims to enhance public safety and reduce suicides. For Oregonians, particularly concealed carry holders, its passage could mean navigating a complex new landscape of rules and restrictions.

A public hearing on May 12, 2025, at 1:00 P.M., provides an opportunity for citizens to weigh in through in-person and online testimony.

From Study to Sweeping Reform

SB 243 did not begin as a comprehensive gun control bill. Initially introduced as a directive for the Oregon State Police to study the efficiency of firearm background checks, it underwent a major transformation through a legislative maneuver known as a “gut and stuff.” Lawmakers removed the original content and inserted broad new regulatory language. The revised bill now includes provisions affecting waiting periods, firearm accessories, and where concealed carry is allowed. The bill has undergone multiple proposed amendments, and as of this writing, a final adopted amendment has not yet been confirmed.

What SB 243 Proposes

72-Hour Waiting Period:
Buyers must wait at least 72 hours after a dealer requests a criminal background check, even if approved immediately, before they can take possession of a firearm. Although few exceptions apply, this will affect private party transfers as well. According to Canby-based civil attorney Tony L. Aiello, Jr., who has represented plaintiffs in the Measure 114 case:
“Waiting periods place vulnerable people under threat from stalkers, abusers, and gangs in danger but do not prevent suicide by individuals who already own firearms or choose to steal firearms to commit suicide. If Oregon lawmakers want to solve these problems, they should try engaging with Oregon’s firearm owners, law enforcement officers, and current and former military who overwhelmingly oppose SB 243.”

Expanded Concealed Carry Restrictions:
School boards, public universities, community colleges, cities, counties, and certain special districts would be allowed to prohibit licensed concealed carry in public buildings and on adjacent grounds. These expanded zones could include sidewalks, parking lots, and other surrounding areas. Because policies can vary by jurisdiction, enforcement may be inconsistent, and signage may not always clearly indicate restricted areas. Aiello added:
“The purpose of SB 243’s prohibition on concealed carry is to make it too difficult for law-abiding CHL holders to know when and where they are not permitted to carry firearms.”

Ban on “Rapid Fire Activators”:
Devices like bump stocks, binary triggers, and forced reset triggers would be banned. Possession would be a Class A misdemeanor; manufacturing, transporting, or selling such devices would be classified as a Class B felony.

Permit-to-Purchase Infrastructure:
Building on Measure 114, SB 243 adds requirements for fingerprint-based background checks and tracking systems. The Oregon State Police would manage implementation, data systems, and annual reporting.

Legal Uncertainty Tied to Measure 114

Senate Bill 243 builds on the framework established by Ballot Measure 114, which introduced Oregon’s permit-to-purchase system and was approved by voters in 2022. However, all provisions of Measure 114 remain under a court injunction and have not been enforced for over two years. One case, Arnold et al. v. Kotek et al., is currently before the Oregon Supreme Court and will determine whether the measure is constitutional under Article I, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution. Separately, a case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will address whether Measure 114 is constitutional under the Second Amendment.

The plaintiffs in the Oregon case are represented by Tony L. Aiello, Jr., a Canby-based civil attorney and Senior Associate at Tyler Smith & Associates, P.C. Aiello, known for his work in Second Amendment litigation, argues that the permit system infringes on constitutional rights. As of May 6, 2025, no decision has been announced by the Oregon Supreme Court on whether it will hear the case.

Because SB 243 expands the permit system and presumes its full implementation, the bill faces legal uncertainty. Should the Oregon Supreme Court rule Measure 114 unconstitutional, portions of SB 243 may face similar legal challenges or be rendered unenforceable, raising questions about the fiscal viability of moving forward with implementation before a final ruling.

A Concealed Carrier’s Perspective: Navigating Uncertainty

Sarah, a 35-year-old Yamhill County resident and licensed concealed carry holder, attends local meetings, community events, and takes evening classes. Under SB 243, she may face new uncertainty about where she can legally carry. With multiple public entities authorized to enact bans—including cities, counties, school boards, and universities—Sarah could unintentionally violate the law simply by walking through a parking lot or public park adjacent to a restricted building.

Because there is no requirement that all jurisdictions implement uniform signage, concealed carry holders may struggle to identify where local policies have been enacted. At this time, there is no universal repository listing places that ban concealed and open carry. As a result, some may choose not to carry at all, even where legal, for fear of unintentionally breaking the law.

Fiscal Impact: State and Local

The Legislative Fiscal Office estimates SB 243 will cost $14.7 million in 2025–27 and $11.6 million in 2027–29, funding 32 new positions, a permit database, and expanded background check operations at the Oregon State Police.

However, these figures do not include local government costs. Under the bill, county sheriff’s offices—including Yamhill County’s—would serve as permit agents. The bill assumes counties will absorb the administrative burden of application intake, fingerprinting, and verification, potentially requiring new staff and systems. While permit fees may offset some costs, the fiscal impact to counties is officially listed as “indeterminate.” Yamhill County, which operates on a tight budget, has previously struggled to fund services such as dog control, raising questions about how it would cover the administrative demands of SB 243.

The bill may also result in increased legal activity, including:

• Additional court filings for permit denials

• Public defense costs for new misdemeanor or felony charges – This would place an undue burden on an already tight budget in Yamhill County

• Enforcement and compliance costs at the city and county levels – Yamhill County and its respective cities have not budgeted the proposed costs that would be foisted upon them by the legislature

Public Hearing and Testimony

SB 243 is currently before the Senate Committee on Rules, with a public hearing scheduled for:

Monday, May 12, 2025
1:00 PM
Hearing Room A, Oregon State Capitol

Oregonians can submit written testimony through the Oregon Legislative Information System at:
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2025R1/Measures/Testimony/SB243

Written testimony may be submitted for a bill or executive appointment scheduled for a public hearing or for a topic scheduled for public comment. Testimony must be received within 48 hours after the start time of the committee meeting. If you are not able to submit your testimony during this open record window, you may email your testimony directly to your legislator or to the committee members.
Read current testimony here.

If enacted, the bill would take effect 91 days after the close of the 2025 legislative session.

Photo Credit: Yamhill County News File