I've been trying to read up on why a license is required to bear concealed arms. There's alot of opinions across the country and some make sense and others do not. So....I did some digging into the history of Oregon law. It really gets put into black and white in 1885. I haven't found any statistics concerning what led up to this change in 1885. Oregon Journal of House of Reps, 1885 Governor's message: A prolific source of crime is the too common habit of carrying concealed weapons. The presence of a weapon in case of personal encounters always presents a strong temptation for its use, and such use in the heat of passion has come to be too lightly regarded. Anything is to be commended which will tend to repress and restrain this too prevalent habit. If the mere carrying of a concealed weapon were, in public estimation and under the law, branded as criminal, fewer instances of justifiable homicide would be reported from our courts. A stringent law upon this matter is recommended. Wow, he wants to turn public opinion against those who carry concealed but he admits that the cases they're seeing in court are justifiable. H.B. No. 117 was introduced, read multiple times and passed: It shall be unlawful for any person to carry concealed about his person in any manner whatever any revolver, pistol, or other firearm, or any knife (other than an ordinary pocketknife), or any dirk or dagger, slung-shot, or metal knuckles, or any instrument by the use of which injury could be inflicted upon the person or property of any other person. For some reason the bill was referred to the wrong committee. Why did it not go to the Judicial Committee? H.B. No. 117 was read the second time, and on motion of Mr. Watts, was referred to the Committee on Education. The education committee agreed and sent it back to the House. Mr. Speaker - Your Committee on Education, to whom was referred H.B. No. 117, beg leave to report that they have had the same under consideration, and would respectfully report it back to the House with the recommendation that it do pass. The bill passed the Senate. The Governor signed the bill. I haven't fully formed my opinion on the CWL issue but I'm swayed by what an OR appellate court said: That rationale -- ensuring the public's ability to assess whether a person is presently in possession of a weapon -- is the legislative purpose often identified with the enactment of weapons concealment statutes around the country. The Iowa Supreme Court, for example, has stated: "We discern the policy underlying the prohibition against concealed weapons to be based on the protection of those persons who may come into contact with a weapon bearer. If a weapon is not concealed, one may take notice of the weapon and its owner and govern oneself accordingly. No such opportunity for cautious behavior or self-preservation exists for one encountering a bearer of a concealed weapon." It seems to come down to these issues: a. The hot-heads of yore would pull their weapon and shoot based on pride or honor. b. The newly minted State of Oregon wanted to protect its civilized citizens from the archaic mentality of the old west or the tradition of dueling. c. If you carry concealed you must have criminal intentions or tendencies. c. The general citizenry has a higher level of requirement to protect itself than do those who carry concealed.