State v. Shelnutt

“‘The restriction on the possession of firearms by a felon has a well-established, historical, and obvious relationship to public safety. Even under intermediate scrutiny, ORS 166.270 is substantially related to an important governmental objective.’” State v. Beeman, 290 Or App 429, 417 P3d 541, rev den, 363 Or 119 (2018).

Defendant appealed a judgment of possession of a firearm under ORS 166.270(1). Defendant assigned error to the lower court for applying a statute that violates her right to bear arms under the Constitution. Defendant argued that the statute is an absolute ban on firearms that survives strict scrutiny and the restrictions to bear arms must be narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest. The Supreme Court has explained that the right to bear arms is not absolute. The Court also determined that it is legislature's "purview" to recognize certain groups who pose a threat to the public. “We explained that ‘[t]he restriction on the possession of firearms by a felon has a well-established, historical, and obvious relationship to public safety. Even under intermediate scrutiny, ORS 166.270 is substantially related to an important governmental objective.’” State v. Beeman, 290 Or App 429, 417 P3d 541, rev den, 363 Or 119 (2018). Lastly, the Court was not convinced with Defendant’s lack of evidentiary proof, which could have supported a claim that the underlying crime or circumstances should be excluded by the statute. Affirmed.