Article 27 Oregon Constitution

[SOrez]

I believe that any gun laws in Oregon would violate Article 27 of the Oregon Constitution.

Section 27.Right to bear arms;military subordinate to civil power.The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves and the State,but the military shall be kept in strict suborcination to the civil power.

Strikes me,that most gun laws would be illegal in Oregon.

Read More

 

[Ralgha]

The antis would simply argue that this article doesn't specify types of arms and that as long as they allow us to have a single shot 22 pistol the article is satisfied.

Of course I don't agree with that, but that's what they'll say.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus that ate your iPhone.

 

[Boats]

They'd have to be arms suitable for the defense of the people and the state.

No .22lr is going to fill that role.

 

[WasrNwarpaint]

this was previously posted here somewhere I think

Military style weapons are legal in Oregon – OR Supreme Court opinion

They can write laws about such things as not waving your gun in public or not allowing felons to own guns but if they make the possession of a military style weapon an illegal act then they will have passed a law that the Oregon Supreme Court has already deemed unconstitutional.

OREGON v. KESSLER, 1980
II. The Oregon right to bear arms
B. The meaning of the term "arms"

"In the colonial and revolutionary war era, weapons used by Militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same. A colonist usually had only one gun which was used for hunting, protection, and militia duty, plus a hatchet, sword, and knife. G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6-15, 252-254 (1973)."

"Therefore, the term "arms" as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense.
...The term "arms" would not have included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militiamen or private citizens."

"If the text and purpose of the constitutional guarantee relied exclusively on the preference for a militia "for defense of the State," then the term "arms" most likely would include only the modern day equivalents of the weapons used by colonial militiamen. The Oregon provision, however, guarantees a right to bear arms "for defense of themselves, and the State." The term "arms" in our constitution therefore would include weapons commonly used for either purpose, even if a particular weapon is unlikely to be used as a militia weapon."

OREGON v. HIRSCH, 2003
III. SCOPE OF THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS UNDER ARTICLE I, SECTION 27
B. Construction of Article I, Section 27
1. Text
"...Article I, section 27, clearly guarantees the right to bear arms for purposes of defense -- specifically, "for the defence of [the people] themselves, and the State." See Kessler, 289 Or at 371 (clarifying that the "defence of themselves" wording includes right "to possess certain arms for defense of person and property" (emphasis added)).
...Specifically, Article I, section 27, precludes the legislature from infringing on the people's right to bear arms for purposes of defense, but not for purposes other than defense. It follows that Article I, section 27, does not preclude the legislature from prohibiting persons convicted of felonies -- or any other persons -- from owning or possessing firearms for other than defensive purposes."

2. Case Law
"...this court has held that Article I, section 27, generally precludes the legislature from prohibiting the mere possession of constitutionally protected arms by "any person" but also has noted that the legislature permissibly may regulate the manner of possession and the use of constitutionally protected arms."

"...the framers viewed citizen arms possession as a critical check on governmental tyranny and as necessary protection against outlaws and enemy attack."