Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court of several state law offenses and violation of city ordinance against carrying a firearm in a public place having recklessly failed to unload it.
The Supreme Court of Oregon held that:
- Supreme Court would not address defendant’s overbreadth challenge to city ordinance;
- Ordinance was facially constitutional under state constitutional article governing right to bear arms; and
- Ordinance did not violate the Second Amendment; overruling State v. Blocker, 630 P.2d 824, and State v. Hirsch/Friend, 114 P.3d 1104.
City ordinance, prohibiting a person from knowingly possessing or carrying a firearm in a public place, recklessly having failed to remove all ammunition from firearm, does not prohibit the mere possession of firearms in public places, but specifically regulates only the manner of possession, namely, knowingly possessing or carrying a loaded firearm in public and recklessly failing to remove all of the ammunition.
Justification for recognizing overbreadth challenges in cases involving freedom of expression and peaceable assembly under First Amendment does not apply in the context of state constitutional article governing the right to bear arms. Unlike protected speech and assembly, recognizing overbreadth challenges in “right to bear arms” cases is not necessary because the enforcement of an overbroad restriction on the right to bear arms does not tend to similarly deter or “chill” conduct that that provision protects.
Overbreadth challenges are not cognizable in challenges under state constitutional article governing right to bear arms, and as such, the justification for recognizing overbreadth challenges in First Amendment freedom of expression and assembly cases does not apply in the context of “right to bear arms” cases; overruling State v. Blocker, 630 P.2d 824, and State v. Hirsch/Friend, 114 P.3d 1104.
Intermediate scrutiny, as opposed to strict scrutiny, was appropriate standard to review constitutionality of city ordinance, prohibiting a person from knowingly possessing or carrying a firearm in a public place, recklessly having failed to remove all ammunition from firearm, under Second Amendment. Ordinance did not absolutely restrict the individual right to bear arms in public for the purpose of self-defense, and it also made additional exceptions to the prohibition of possession or carrying loaded firearms in public places, some of which lessened the burden of the ordinance on Second Amendment rights.