Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

107 Or. App. 284

State v. Long

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 22, 1991

Court of Appeals of Oregon · decided 1991-05-22

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently July 2019

4 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1991-05-22

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

ROSSMAN, J.

¶1The state moves for reconsideration of our opinion, 106 Or App 389,807 P2d 815 (1991), seeking clarification of a portion. We allow the motion.

¶2The 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.

¶3We 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 statute permits carrying loaded firearms, if they are licensed and unconcealed. It permits the carrying of loaded and concealed firearms if the person is licensed to do so. The ordinance prohibits carrying loaded firearms, even if they are unconcealed, except that, like the statute, it permits the carrying of loaded and concealed firearms by persons licensed to do so.”

¶4Motion for reconsideration allowed; opinion adhered to as clarified.

/107/orapp/284 · .json · Public domain