Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Aymette v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See 21 Tenn. 154 , 1840 WL 1554 , *6. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stevensgreen2 sentences2000See State v. Stevens, 113 Or App 429 , 833 P2d 318 (1992) (convicting a person arrested in his *349 place of residence for possession of a concealed switchblade infringes on the defendant’s right to bear arms under Article I, section 27). 2000See State v. Stevens, 113 Or App 429 , 833 P2d 318 (1992) (convicting a person arrested in his *349 place of residence for possession of a concealed switchblade infringes on the defendant’s right to bear arms under Article I, section 27). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Christian
green
2 sentences2025We conclude that all of Measure 114 is facially constitutional under Article I, section 27, based on the established legal test set out in State v. Christian, 354 Or 22 , 307 P3d 429 (2013).2 Accordingly, we reverse. 2025We conclude that all of Measure 114 is facially constitutional under Article I, section 27, based on the established legal test set out in State v. Christian, 354 Or 22 , 307 P3d 429 (2013).2 Accordingly, we reverse. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Hirsch/Friend
red
2 sentences2012Id. 2012Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Delgado
green
2 sentences2005In discussing the right to bear arms under Article I, section 27, the court held, “The appropriate inquiry in the case at bar is whether a kind of weapon, as modified by its modern design and function, is of the sort commonly used by individuals for personal defense *121 during either the revolutionary and post-revolutionary era, or in 1859 when Oregon’s constitution was adopted.” State v. Delgado, 298 Or 395, 400-01 , 692 P2d 610 (1984) (emphasis added). 2005In discussing the right to bear arms under Article I, section 27, the court held, “The appropriate inquiry in the case at bar is whether a kind of weapon, as modified by its modern design and function, is of the sort commonly used by individuals for personal defense *121 during either the revolutionary and post-revolutionary era, or in 1859 when Oregon’s constitution was adopted.” State v. Delgado, 298 Or 395, 400-01 , 692 P2d 610 (1984) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Kessler
green
2 sentences1988The court concluded that the challenge was sufficient to raise the question, which it had recently decided in State v. Kessler, 289 Or 359 , 614 P2d 94 (1980), whether the statutory proscription abridged the right to bear arms under Article I, section 27, of the state constitution. 1988The court concluded that the challenge was sufficient to raise the question, which it had recently decided in State v. Kessler, 289 Or 359 , 614 P2d 94 (1980), whether the statutory proscription abridged the right to bear arms under Article I, section 27, of the state constitution. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Warner
green
2 sentences1985On appeal, defendant abandoned his claim that the statute violates Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution. 3 The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides: “* * * nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; * * *” 4 See State v. Warner, 298 Or 640, 643-4 , nn 1 and 2, 696 P2d 1052 (1985) (complete list of burglar’s tool statutes). 5 One other state, Minnesota, recognizes the possession of “a tool to gain access to money or property” as an element of the crime of burglary in the second degree. 1985On appeal, defendant abandoned his claim that the statute violates Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution. 3 The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides: “* * * nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; * * *” 4 See State v. Warner, 298 Or 640, 643-4 , nn 1 and 2, 696 P2d 1052 (1985) (complete list of burglar’s tool statutes). 5 One other state, Minnesota, recognizes the possession of “a tool to gain access to money or property” as an element of the crime of burglary in the second degree. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.