So states State v. Christian (Ore. Aug. 15, 2013):
[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 Amendment’s 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 doesn’t 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 court’s 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.