Oregon Appeals Court Overturns Firearm Conviction, Rules Felon Did Not Possess Rifle He Arranged to Sell
Why It Matters
A split ruling from the Oregon Court of Appeals is drawing attention from prosecutors and gun rights observers alike, raising questions about how the state defines firearm possession for individuals prohibited from owning weapons. The decision could complicate future prosecutions in Oregon involving third-party transfers of firearms.
What Happened
The Oregon Court of Appeals overturned the firearm possession conviction of Chet Thomas Hamilton, 49, of Linn County, in a 2-1 decision issued Wednesday. Hamilton had been sentenced to 15 months in prison and two years of post-prison supervision after being charged in 2023 with unlawfully possessing a firearm while on probation stemming from prior felony convictions, including coercion, identity theft, and witness tampering.
The circumstances of the case were unusual. Hamilton wanted to sell a hunting rifle that his cousin had been storing — a rifle Hamilton says he never physically handled. According to court records, the cousin transported the weapon to a Salem pawnshop and physically conducted the transaction. Hamilton was present during the sale but did not touch the firearm. When the pawnbroker asked if he was “good to go,” Hamilton responded, “yep.”
Linn County prosecutors argued that Hamilton’s involvement — directing his cousin to bring the rifle in, consenting to the sale, and standing to receive proceeds from it — was sufficient to establish what the law calls “constructive possession.” The trial court rejected Hamilton’s motion for acquittal, and he was convicted and sentenced.
The Court’s Reasoning
Writing for the majority, Appeals Judge Jacqueline Kamins concluded that the state’s evidence fell short of proving Hamilton exercised meaningful custody or control over the weapon. The court emphasized that the rifle was stored by the cousin in a manner that left Hamilton unable to access it, and that Hamilton never came into physical contact with the gun at any point.
“It is not clear that defendant exercised any custody or control over the rifle,” Kamins wrote in the ruling.
The majority also raised a statutory interpretation question — whether the legislature intended an otherwise lawful sale or ownership transfer to fall within the definition of constructive possession. The court suggested it did not.
The Dissent
Judge Douglas Tookey issued a partial dissent, agreeing that the lower court’s judgment should be reversed but pushing back on the majority’s reasoning. Tookey emphasized that Hamilton told the pawnbroker he was the legal owner of the rifle, remained in the shop after his cousin departed, and gave final approval for the sale to proceed.
“In other words, there was evidence that he was exercising dominion and control over the rifle when he sold it,” Tookey wrote.
The dissent reflects the unresolved tension at the heart of the case: whether orchestrating a sale, receiving money from it, and holding legal ownership of the item crosses into possession even without physical contact.
By the Numbers
- 15 months — original prison sentence handed down by the Linn County trial court
- 2 years — length of post-prison supervision included in Hamilton’s sentence
- 3 — prior felony-level convictions on Hamilton’s record (coercion, identity theft, witness tampering)
- 2-1 — the split margin of the appeals court ruling
Zoom Out
The ruling arrives as Oregon continues navigating complicated legal terrain around firearms regulations. The state passed Measure 114 in November 2022, tightening several aspects of gun control law, though the measure has faced ongoing legal challenges in the courts. Critics of expansive gun control laws may view this ruling as a modest correction against overly broad prosecutorial interpretations of possession statutes.
Oregon’s courts have also been under scrutiny recently for procedural concerns. An Oregon appeals judge recently flagged a rapidly escalating problem with AI-generated erroneous court filings, adding to broader questions about the integrity of proceedings moving through the state’s court system.
What’s Next
The Oregon Department of Justice confirmed it is reviewing the appeals court decision and evaluating its available options, which could include seeking further review before the Oregon Supreme Court. Representatives for the Linn County District Attorney’s Office had not responded to requests for comment as of Thursday. Whether prosecutors pursue additional legal action will likely determine whether the constructive possession question gets a definitive answer from Oregon’s highest court.
About the Author
