11:45 a.m. Aug. 16: This posting has been updated to include comment from the lawyer representing Jonathan Christian.

A city of Portland ordinance that prohibits carrying loaded guns in public places does not violate a person's right to bear arms, the Oregon Supreme Court has ruled

The decision in State and City of Portland v. Jonathan D. Christian, released Thursday, is believed to be the first time the state's highest court has weighed in on the ordinance. The justices' endorsement of the law's constitutionality comes as communities across the country continue a heated debate over government regulations of firearms.

The ruling, written by Justice Richard Baldwin for the unanimous court, carries implications for more than just Portland, said Harry Auerbach, Chief Deputy City Attorney for Portland. He said several local governments throughout Oregon have similar regulations.

"The ability of cities statewide to protect their citizens was an important consideration" for the court, he said, adding that the ruling bolsters efforts "to protect the safety of people on the streets of Portland by limiting the number of loaded firearms that are out there."

The city ordinance prohibiting the carrying of loaded firearms in public has existed for decades, although the Portland City Council amended it in December 2010 to add a mandatory jail term of 30 days for violating the ordinance. That amendment was part of a package of new gun laws passed under former Mayor Sam Adams.

The case challenging the ordinance stems from the September 2008 arrest of Jonathan D. Christian.

The opinion offers an outline of the incident: Christian had carried a bag across a street before placing it behind the counter of a convenience store. He then sat on a chair outside the store.

Officers approached soon after and asked if they could search him. He had with him an empty gun holster, a loaded magazine, two knives and pepper spray, the opinion states. After Christian told police about the bag in the store and granted permission to search it, officers located two loaded 9-mm semiautomatic handguns and additional loaded magazines.

Arrested and charged with violating state weapons laws and the city ordinance, he was convicted in Multnomah County Circuit Court. He challenged the Portland city ordinance before the Oregon Court of Appeals, arguing the law violated both the state and U.S. constitutions. But the appeals court affirmed his conviction in 2011.

In appealing that decision to the Supreme Court, Christian's lawyers contended that the right to bear arms for self-defense in the home implies a right to carry loaded guns in public places without restriction, according to the opinion's summary.

But Justice Baldwin wrote that the ordinance is not a total ban on carrying loaded firearms. Rather, it regulates "the manner of possession and use of firearms in public places." In addition, there are 14 exceptions to the law, which allow those with concealed weapons permits, police officers and several other groups of people to carry a loaded firearm in public places.

"The ordinance reflects a legislative determination," the justice wrote, "that the risk of death or serious injury to members of the public moving about in public places is increased by the threat posed by individuals who recklessly fail to unload their firearms."

The justices declined to consider Christian's attorneys' primary argument -- that the law was overbroad, meaning that the restrictions violated the state's constitutional right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. Although the court has allowed the "overbreadth" theory in two previous firearms-related cases, it opted against hearing the argument in Christian's case.

In its opinion, the court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court considers the "overbreadth" theory only in First Amendment cases because overbroad restrictions can have a "chilling effect" on whether people exercise their constitutional right to expression.

Neil Byl, deputy public defender for Oregon Public Defense Services who represented Christian, argued that the overbreadth argument should apply in right-to-bear-arms cases as well. He contended the right to self defense can be similarly chilled if overbroad restrictions lead to people choosing to not carry their weapons for self-defense.

But the justices disagreed. In addition, they noted that overbreadth challenges can lead to "striking of major parts of an otherwise valid law reflecting legitimate state interests."

"That sort of blocked our argument," Byl said. "We knew if we lost that we were going to be in trouble."

Christian, in a brief interview, said he had not yet seen the opinion himself, but was not expecting the court to reverse his conviction.

He maintained that his guns were not actually loaded, although the appeal did not address that claim.

-- Helen Jung