Oregon Supreme Court - August 15, 2013

by: Jevans and Abassos • August 16, 2013 • no comments

Portland’s Gun Ordinance is Not Constitutionally Deficient Because Overbreadth Challenges No Longer Apply to Gun Rights

The Court construes the Portland City Gun Ordinance, PCC 14A.60.010(A), to prohibit a person from (1) knowingly possessing or carrying a firearm in a public place (2) if the person has recklessly failed to unload it. The Court of Appeals had previously construed the ordinance in a non-intuitive way to save it from an overbreadth challenge. The ordinance is upheld under both the Oregon and Federal Constitutions.

• Article I, Section 27: The Supreme Court eliminates overbreadth challenges to gun control laws. In future facial challenges under Article I, section 27, the challenger will have to prove that a gun control law is unconstitutional in all its possible applications (or else pursue an as-applied challenge). Here, the court upholds PCC 14A.60.010(A) because it does not prohibit constitutionally protected activity in all its applications – the Court’s example: a person can still carry a loaded firearm for self-defense with a concealed weapon permit.
• Second Amendment: Without clear direction from the Federal Courts, the Court elected to apply intermediate scrutiny to Second Amendment challenges to gun control laws. Here, the Court holds that PCC 14A.60.010(A) is narrowly tailored to further the important government interest of public safety.

State v. Christian, 354 Or ____, Aug. 15, 2013.

Felon in Possession of a Firearm - A Felony Later Reduced to a Misdemeanor Is Not a Felony

A person cannot be convicted as a felon in possession of a firearm if the predicate felony was reduced to a misdemeanor in a court judgment before the person obtained the firearm. The phrase “at the time of judgment,” in the felon in possession statute, refers to the most recent judgment, including one that reduces a felony to a misdemeanor after the completion of probation. Here, defendant was convicted of a felony but later the trial court reduced the conviction to a misdemeanor. Subsequently, the defendant was found with a firearm in his possession. Normally, the reduction of the predicate felony would have safeguarded the defendant from prosecution as a felon in possession. However, in this case the reduction from felony status occurred in an “order” as opposed to a “judgment” – an order is not sufficient. State v. Stark, 354 Or ____, Aug. 15, 2013.