The death of the handgun license records bill in the Senate Rules Committee indirectly leads to this question: Why does Oregon issue or need concealed handgun licenses in the first place?

House Bill 2727 was requested by Oregon sheriffs to clarify that the personal information shown on concealed handgun licenses, such as name and address, was exempt from public disclosure.

The House amended the bill to put the licenses under the public records act as one of those that are exempt from disclosure unless the public interest in a particular case requires it.

The Senate Judiciary Committee further weakened the privacy protection in the bill and sent it to the Rules Committee, where it will apparently be left to die when the legislature adjourns.

Sen. Ginny Burdick of Portland says it was a bad bill. She testified against it and says: Also opposed are the American Civil Liberties Union, the Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association "and - get this - the Oregon Firearms Federation."

But these groups were opposed for different reasons. The newspaper group wanted the records to be public, a position with which the Democrat-Herald disagreed.

The firearms group wants the records to be kept confidential. It changed its initial support of the bill as introduced to opposition only after the bill was weakened.

Its opposition should not be interpreted as support for public access to whatever information is on those licenses. The group is opposed to public disclosure of the license information, just as the original bill would have provided.

The licenses are required to be issued to any adult who has no serious criminal record, has no history of mental health problems, is the subject of no restraining orders, and can demonstrate some rudimentary familiarity with firearms safety.

But under the Oregon constitution, any citizen other than a felon has the right to buy a firearm and to carry one openly if he is so rash as to try it. The license is required only to carry one concealed.

So what exactly is the practical point of this licensing requirement?

If criminals can get hold of a gun - and they can - they are not going to worry about carrying it concealed without a license. They are not supposed to have a gun in the first place. So if they are going to carry one around, they have to conceal it, and they surely would.

Legitimate handgun owners could carry a weapon openly and no licenses would be required. But that would draw worried stares from fellow citizens and probably cause calls to 911, bringing the gendarmes asking questions and adding to the commotion.

So the only real point in the licenses is to prevent panic when a legitimate owner goes about his business armed. But if he's a legitimate owner, the only kind who can get a concealed-carry license, then why worry about him? More to the point, why make him get a license? And now, why make him get a license the privacy of which the legislature is unwilling to protect? (hh)