Well, I've searched and I couldn't come up with anything on this.... Anyway, I came across the Oregon Constitution: <broken link removed> Note Section 27: The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. It never really dawned on me before, but now I'm curious. If this is a state constitutional right, why are city ordinances against weapons not unconstitutional? For that matter, why do we need to apply for CCW in this state? Is it that the OR constitution does not include the phrase, "shall not be infringed"? Is this statement not implied? It seems to me that anything that limits my RBA for defence [sic] is unconstitutional.