Legal Opinion

State v. Long

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 22, 1991No. DA 363899; CA A61733PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRossman, J.

The state moves for reconsideration of our opinion, 106 Or App 389,807 P2d 815 (1991), seeking clarification of a portion. We allow the motion.

The opinion states, in part:

“The statute permits carrying loaded firearms, if they are licensed and unconcealed. The ordinance prohibits carrying loaded firearms, even if they are licensed.” 106 Or App at 394.

We clarify that statement by pointing out that both the statute and the ordinance permit a person licensed to do so to carry a loaded and concealed firearm. Accordingly, the passage quoted above is deleted, and this language is substituted:

“The…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State v. LongCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. City of Portland v. JacksonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
  2. State v. MilnesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
  3. State v. PayneCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2019
  4. City of Eugene v. KrukCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
  5. City of Portland v. JacksonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API