City of Portland v. Sottile

A firearm regulation is constitutional only if it is consistent with the Nations’ historical tradition of firearm regulation

The defendant here was charged with violating PCC 14A.60.010, which prohibits possession of loaded firearms in public, when police found a loaded firearm in his pocket. The defendant argued that the ordinance itself is facially unconstitutional under the second amendment and the trial court disagreed. On appeal, the defendant relied on New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 US 1, 142 S Ct 2111, 213 L Ed 2d 387 (2022), which requires courts to look at the nation’s history of firearm regulation when restricting firearm rights. The defendant claimed that there are no historical traditions that would support the ordinance’s restrictions of carrying loaded firearms in public.

Under Bruen, a firearm regulation is constitutional only if it is consistent with the Nations’ historical tradition of firearm regulation. The right to bear arms has “traditionally been subject to well-defined restrictions governing the intent for which one could carry arms, the manner of carry, or the exceptional circumstances under which one could not carry arms.” Id. at 38.

The Oregon Court of Appeals disagreed with the defendant’s interpretation of Bruen and found that the ordinance is consistent with these historical traditions because it limits the right to bear arms in public only in specific ways and allows concealed handgun licenses as exceptions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.