Stepping back here for a bit.
And I understand that my analogy isn't precise - there's no Right to Keep and Bear Cars - but...
We require people to take a class, pass a written test, and in cases of new drivers, require them to pass a real-world skills proficiency test before we permit them to use an automobile in public.
Cars are arguably just as dangerous as firearms/handguns (if not more so, despite
the training, but that's another discussion).
It's been said many times on these boards, and I'd be surprised if anyone disagreed - carrying a loaded firearm is Serious Businesstm
and you need to know what you are doing.
You wouldn't hand someone with no training a loaded gun, tell them, "Here, it's your right to have this, go have fun..." and let them walk out the door, right?
So it seems reasonable to me that some sort of training should be done before allowing a person to bear arms in public. This isn't infringement in my opinion, it's common sense. You take the training and get the card, then get the gun.
I'm actually surprised that you can buy a handgun in Oregon without proof of any training at all. Granted, it may be that I'm not quite de-Californicated yet, who knows?
I'm curious - do you oppose hunter safety classes?