State v. H. N.

A law infringing on rights protected under the Second Amendment is valid when consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 US 1, 17,142 S Ct 2111, 213 L Ed 2d 387 (2022).

Appellant was civilly committed for a period not to exceed 180 days due to mental illness and was prohibited from the purchase and possession of firearms under ORS 426.130(1)(a)(D).  On appeal, Appellant declared the ruling error because ORS 426.130(1)(a)(D) is facially unconstitutional and violated her Second Amendment rights. "Only if a [state] firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’ ” New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 US 1, 17,142 S Ct 2111, 213 L Ed 2d 387 (2022). The Court found that a historical tradition was established by both the past legal practice of incarcerating the mentally ill via judicial order and therefore infringing upon their liberties as well as a pre-founding era exclusion from Second Amendment protections of those who presented a danger to society. Thus, the Court held that ORS 426.130(1)(a)(D) is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation that prohibits persons with mental illness from possessing firearms, and therefore, the Second Amendment was not facially violated.  Affirmed.