State v. Beeman

A law prohibiting the actual possession of a firearm is legally valid under intermediate scrutiny so long as the law is “substantially related to an important governmental objective.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 (2008).

Defendant appealed judgment of conviction of one count of felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of an acquittal based upon federal and state constitutional challenges for possession of a firearm by a felon. On appeal, Defendant argued that the United States Constitution’s Second Amendment and Oregon’s Constitution Article I, section 27 prohibit criminalization of a felon’s actual and constructive possession of a firearm within a home. In response, the State argued that a state’s legislature may lawfully restrict a felon’s possession of firearms. A law prohibiting the actual possession of a firearm is legally valid under intermediate scrutiny so long as the law is “substantially related to an important governmental objective,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 (2008) and that conclusion does not change when the felon’s possession is in the home. The Court of Appeals held that ORS 166.270 requires the denial of the motion of judgment of acquittal because the evidence showed that Defendant had actual possession of a firearm, which The Second Amendment and Oregon Article 1, section 27, do not prohibit the criminalization and the legislature has evaluated the reasons for the prohibition. Affirmed.