Multnomah County commissioners voted unanimously on September 4, 2025, to prohibit concealed firearms in county buildings, citing new authority granted under Senate Bill 243. The ordinance extends existing prohibitions on firearms in places like the Oregon State Capitol, airports, schools, and universities to include county-owned facilities used for official meetings. Previously, concealed handgun license holders could claim an affirmative defense when charged with unlawful possession in a public building. With this change, even valid permit holders are barred from carrying in county offices once required signage is posted. Commissioners Shannon Singleton and Julia Brim-Edwards introduced the measure and framed it around safety and access to government. Singleton said firearms in public buildingseven when carried by individuals with a concealed handgun licensecan undermine trust, increase perceived risk, and escalate conflict. Brim-Edwards pointed to the nearly 37,000 concealed handgun licenses in the county and described the ordinance as a step toward ensuring county buildings feel welcoming and safe for seniors, families, vulnerable populations, survivors of violence, and individuals in crisis. The ordinance includes specific exceptions. Multnomah County Sheriffs Office personnel and government employees authorized to carry remain exempt, as do security guards employed by FDIC-insured financial institutions. The county must post clear signage at affected facilities to notify the public that concealed firearms are not allowed and that violations may lead to exclusion from county buildings. Enforcement will begin after those notices are in place. This local action flows directly from Senate Bill 243, which took effect September 1. That legislation expanded the ability of Oregon cities, counties, and other local governing bodies to prohibit concealed firearms in buildings used for official meetings. Under prior law, statewide bans were limited to a narrower set of locations, and concealed handgun licensees could rely on an affirmative defense if charged in many public-building contexts. SB 243 removed that shield and expressly empowered local jurisdictions to set tighter rules for their own facilities. Supporters argue that the county ordinance aligns with the long-standing principle that certain government venuesand the civic interactions that occur within themwarrant tighter restrictions to prevent intimidation, reduce the risk of accidental discharge, and keep tempers from flaring during contentious meetings. Critics maintain that concealed-carry permit holders are already vetted and that extending prohibitions to them penalizes lawful owners without addressing criminal misuse. Commissioners emphasized that the ordinance does not target ownership or broader public carry rules; it applies only to county buildings and is aimed at how people engage with officials and services in those settings. Practical implications are straightforward for permit holders. Anyone entering a covered county building should expect posted notices and enforcement. Individuals carrying concealed firearms, even with a valid license, will be in violation under the new policy once signs are up and could be excluded from the premises. The countys move may also serve as a template for other Oregon jurisdictions considering similar restrictions under the new state law.