Eugene Volokh ē August 16, 2013 12:17 am

So states State v. Christian (Ore. Aug. 15, 2013) (Jonathan David Christian):

[W]e conclude in the first instance that the ordinance [limited carrying] does, to some extent, burden protected conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendmentís guarantee. [Footnote: ... Although Heller did not define the scope of the right to self-defense outside the home, we read the opinion as recognizing a right to self-defense outside the home to a degree yet to be determined by the Court....]
But the court concluded that the ordinance at issue doesnít restrict the right too much, partly because Oregon is a shall-issue state and people remain free to carry if they get a concealed carry license. (The court also rejected the lower courtís odd interpretation of the Portland ordinance, which I noted last year.) I think the court was right to interpret Heller as securing some right to carry outside the home, though recent lower court decisions have mostly (though not entirely) rejected such a right.
The decision - http://www.publications.ojd.state.or...cs/S060407.pdf

We only briefly refer to the underlying facts, because defendant has not
asserted an "as applied" challenge to the ordinance at issue in this appeal. See ORAP
5.45(1) ("No matter claimed as error will be considered on appeal unless the claim of
error was preserved in the lower court and is assigned as error in the opening brief ...