Opinion ID: 835750
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: nature of constitutional challenge at issue

Text: At the outset, we clarify the nature of the parties' disputes under the Oregon Constitution. Defendants contend that ORS 166.270(1) is unconstitutionally overbroad on its face. Specifically, defendants argue that, although the legislature might have authority under Article I, section 27, to prohibit the possession of firearms as to certain dangerous felons, the legislature is without authority to prohibit possession categorically as to all felons. The state responds that, because defendants raised only facial challenges to ORS 166.270(1), they must establish that that statute is unconstitutional in all its applications. In the state's view, any such effort in that regard fails, in light of defendants' apparent concession that the legislature permissibly may limit arms possession as to certain dangerous felons. It follows, the state argues, that defendants fall short of satisfying a prerequisite to their facial challenges (that is, that the statute is unconstitutional in all its applications) and, therefore, that this court should refrain from reaching the merits of defendants' arguments respecting Article I, section 27. The state is correct that, when bringing certain facial constitutional challenges to a statute, the challenger ordinarily must establish that the statute is unconstitutional in all its applications. See Jensen v. Whitlow, 334 Or. 412, 421, 51 P.3d 599 (2002); State v. Sutherland, 329 Or. 359, 365, 987 P.2d 501 (1999) (both stating principle). Where that principle applies, if the challenger is unable to establish facial unconstitutionality in that manner, then the challenger is left to argue only that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to the particular facts at hand. See, e.g., State ex rel. Kane v. Goldschmidt, 308 Or. 573, 590, 783 P.2d 988 (1989) (although state-approved financing agreements did not contravene constitutional debt limitations on their face, future, unpredictable circumstances could render agreements in violation of those limitations); Hunter v. State of Oregon, 306 Or. 529, 533-34, 761 P.2d 502 (1988) (although unavailability of post-conviction relief to persons convicted of municipal ordinance violations did not in itself contravene equal privilege and immunities protections, future unequal application of ordinances to certain classes could implicate those protections). [3] However, defendants here do not assert that ORS 166.270(1) is unconstitutional on its face because it violates Article I, section 27, in all its applications. Rather, they particularly argue that, on its face, that statute is unconstitutionally overbroad. The term overbreadth connotes a particular type of facial constitutional challenge in which the challenger contends that, although a statute constitutionally could apply in some circumstances, it impermissibly, and necessarily, impinges on a constitutional guarantee in other circumstances by prohibiting conduct that is constitutionally protected. State v. Robertson, 293 Or. 402, 410, 649 P.2d 569 (1982); State v. Blocker, 291 Or. 255, 261, 630 P.2d 824 (1981). Unlike with other facial challenges, a challenger raising an overbreadth challenge need not demonstrate that the statute at issue is unconstitutional under the particular circumstances at hand. Rather, the challenger will prevail in his or her facial challenge if the court concludes that the statute in question prohibits constitutionally protected conduct of any kind. See Blocker, 291 Or. at 261, 630 P.2d 824 ([T]o the extent that an overbroad law forbids what may not constitutionally be forbidden, it is invalid as such without regard to the facts in the individual case.). In short, a challenger appropriately raises a claim of overbreadth whenever a legislative enactment, in certain circumstances, purportedly contravenes a constitutional provision that delineates protected conduct. To illustrate, this court on many occasions has addressed overbreadth challenges involving Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution, which delineates constitutionally protected conduct by guaranteeing the right to free expression of opinion and the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever. See, e.g., City of Hillsboro v. Purcell, 306 Or. 547, 556, 761 P.2d 510 (1988); State v. Ray, 302 Or. 595, 733 P.2d 28 (1987) (both agreeing with claims asserting overbreadth under Article I, section 8). More recently, this court also addressed an overbreadth challenge invoking both Article I, section 8, and Article I, section 26, which delineates constitutionally protected conduct by guaranteeing the right to peaceable assembly. State v. Ausmus, 336 Or. 493, 85 P.3d 864 (2004). In all the foregoing cases, the court concluded that the statutes at issue impinged on the rights guaranteed under Article I, sections 8 and 26, in certain circumstances, even though they did not necessarily do so in all circumstances. See Ausmus, 336 Or. at 507, 85 P.3d 864; Purcell, 306 Or. at 555-56, 761 P.2d 510; Ray, 302 Or. at 600-01, 733 P.2d 28 (all so concluding). Further, consistently with the nature of overbreadth challenges, the court did not examine the particular facts of the cases before it. Rather, the court concluded in each case that the fact that the statute at issue, on its face, impinged on constitutionally protected conduct in certain circumstances compelled invalidation of the statute. Like Article I, section 8, and Article I, section 26, Article I, section 27, delineates constitutionally protected conduct, by guaranteeing the right of the people to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state. Consequently, a claim of overbreadth is appropriate when a challenger contends that, in certain circumstances, a statute impinges on that right. Indeed, this court recognized as much in Blocker, 291 Or. at 261-62, 630 P.2d 824 (discussed further below), when it concluded that a statute that prohibited possession of certain types of weapons reached beyond permissible limits to impinge on a constitutionally protected right. Id. at 261, 630 P.2d 824. Likewise, defendants here appropriately ground their challenges in the overbreadth doctrine, because they argue that ORS 166.270(1) unconstitutionally impinges on the right to bear arms in certain circumstances, even though that statute arguably could apply in a constitutional manner in other circumstances (that is, as to certain dangerous felons). We clarify one further aspect of an overbreadth challenge that bears on our analysis set out below. As this court has noted before, courts may be able in some circumstances to resolve overbreadth challenges through statutory interpretation. That is, the court ultimately may determine that the legislature did not intend the statute at issue to operate with the breadth that the challenger attributes to it. See Robertson, 293 Or. at 412, 649 P.2d 569 (explaining that, in some circumstances, court may save overbroad law through narrowing construction that is fully consistent with legislature's intent); see also State v. Rangel, 328 Or. 294, 304-06, 977 P.2d 379 (1999) (applying principle to criminal stalking statute in context of facial overbreadth challenge). However, for purposes of the issue before us here, the text of ORS 166.270(1) offers no opportunity for a narrowing judicial construction: it prohibits all persons convicted of any felony under state or federal law from possessing firearms in all circumstances. [4]
One further preliminary matter requires mention here. The state asserts that, in bringing their facial challenges to ORS 166.270(1), defendants bear the burden of proving that that statute prohibits conduct that Article I, section 27, protects. We disagree. As this court has explained, an ambiguity in the constitution or in a statute does not, by itself, create an issue of fact, let alone one that must be resolved by the presentation of evidence. Ecumenical Ministries v. Oregon State Lottery Commission, 318 Or. 551, 558, 871 P.2d 106 (1994). Rather, the court's `sole duty    is to resolve the dispute in terms of the applicability of    the constitutional provision[ ]' that defendants invoke, that is, Article I, section 27. Id. at 559, 871 P.2d 106 (quoting Monaghan v. School District No. 1, 211 Or. 360, 363, 315 P.2d 797 (1957) (first ellipsis in Ecumenical Ministries )). We proceed to that task now.