State v. Vinge

A statute does not facially violate the Second Amendment so long as it is consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation, such as limitations on concealed carry.

The defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and possession of a loaded firearm in public. The defendant demurred to both charges, asserting that the statute and city code, ORS 166.250 and Portland City Code 14A.60.010, violated his rights under the Second Amendment. The trial court denied the demurrer. On appeal, the defendant demurred the charges again on the same grounds, alleging that through the Second Amendment he is permitted to carry a firearm and that Oregon’s statute is akin to the unconstitutional “may issue” regime seen in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 US 1, 24, 142 S Ct 2111, 213 L Ed 2d 387 (2022). The court determined that while there is a Second Amendment right to carry firearms in public, historical tradition permits statutory regulation of the manner of carry. Thus, Oregon’s statute requiring people to obtain concealed carry permits is constitutional. Additionally, the court determined, using New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, that allowing sheriffs to bar some applicants from obtaining a permit based on the sheriff’s determination of their propensity to violent conduct, does not turn Oregon’s “shall issue” regime to a “may issue” regime as the defendant alleges. Therefore, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.