2.

Discussion Section of the Memo

a) The Beretta in Mr. English’s case will not be deemed a firearm.
b) Oregon Statute describes a firearm as “a weapon, by whatever name known, which is
designed to expel a projectile by the action of powder and which is readily capable of
use as a weapon.” O.R.S. § 166.210 (3) (2008).
c) Gortmaker
i. In State v. Gortmaker, 60 Or. App. 723, 655 P.2d 575 (1983), the court held that
the defendant’s .38 caliber Smith and Wesson Revolver was a firearm under the
Oregon Statute.
ii. Prior to being arrested, the defendant, Gary D. Gortmaker, had purposely
disassembled the gun to render it inoperable.
iii. In the course of the investigation that followed, a private gunsmith was able to
repair the gun in three or four minutes
iv. at a total cost of $6.
i. The Court in this case found the defense’s argument that the weapon
did not qualify as a firearm because it was inoperable, “wholly without
merit” Mr. Gortmaker’s appeal was denied.
d) Goltz
i. In State v. Goltz, 169 Or. App. 619, 10 P.3d 955 (2000), the defendant, Michael
Lee Goltz, was similarly found in possession of a handgun that had been
purposely disassembled.
ii. In the Goltz case, the state’s expert testified that it had taken an hour to
reassemble the gun,
i. but that most of that time had been spent documenting the process.
iii. The defense argued that, “the evidence was insufficient to show that [Goltz’s]
handgun was readily useable as a firearm, given that it took the state’s expert
an hour to reassemble the weapon.” Conversely, the state argued that the
evidence was sufficient because the majority of the time the expert spent on
reassembly was on documentation. The court agreed with the state. In the
opinion the court noted, “the state’s expert made clear that very little time was
required to make the gun operable and that he did not need to add any missing
parts or modify it to make it capable of firing.”
iv. The defendant’s appeal was denied.
e) Analysis
i. The above cases show that the Beretta in Mr. English’s case will not be
considered a firearm.
ii. The English case is similar to Goltz and Gortmaker in that Mr. English was found
with a gun that was inoperable. Also, similar was that Mr. English’s gun was
later repaired in the course of an investigation. However, a significant difference
can be seen in the initial condition and eventual repair of these weapons.
Where the guns in the Goltz and Gortmaker cases had been purposely rendered
inoperable, English’s gun had been badly damaged in an accident several years
prior. Upon repair, the weapons in the Goltz and Gortmaker cases were easily
 reassembled and needed very little time and expense to become operable.
English’s gun on the other hand, took an expert a full hour to repair and the
repair could only be accomplished after ordering a part. The part that needed to
be ordered cost $104, was not available locally, and had to be shipped from the
manufacturer.
iii. It is clear from the statute defining a firearm and the discussions in the Goltz
and Gortmaker cases, that the distinction between “readily capable” and not
“readily capable” concerns the weapons immediate useability. In the Goltz and
Gortmaker cases the weapons were so easy to repair that it is easy to
understand why the phrase “readily capable” was added to the law. A felon,
prohibited from owning a gun, could simply take apart a weapon when not in
use and reassemble the weapon at will. This would reduce the risk of a felon
being charged with the possession of a firearm but would do little to discourage
felons from possessing firearms. Furthermore, when the courts take the time to
discuss how quickly and easily a weapon may be put into ready use, it makes
apparent that a gun that is not quickly and easily reassembled should not be
considered “readily capable” and thus not a firearm under the law.
f) Ethan English could not, under the circumstances, quickly or easily repair the Beretta.
That process would involve at least an hour of an expert’s time and perhaps days or
weeks to order the part needed to fix it. In light of these facts, the Beretta in Mr.
English’s case cannot be considered “readily capable.”