I see a lot of this....
"It's an infringement of my rights to be required to show a CHL or required to have a CHL as it's an infringement".
If the Supreme Court of United States agreed with you, they would have taken Charles Williams v. State of Maryland. They did not.
2A constitutional doctrine is still in it's infancy in terms of effects on the gun owning public at large. We've had numerous state cases, where the Oregon State Supreme Court nullified the state RKBA provision (which was later partially restored by not fully by a later case) over a semi-auto ban passed by Portland. They were challenged in court by OSSA, and they lost. This resulted in a state preemption statute passed by the Legislature and put into law by veto-override over then (and now again) Governor Kitzhaber, which annihilated the local ordinance.
In the next 2 years, there will be a right to carry decision coming out of the SCOTUS. There will be further litigation coming from that decision, but most of the battle will be won.
If something is a right, it cannot be subject to discretionary licensing, either prior restraint form or post-hoc. Oregon allows cities and counties to ban loaded carry but exempts a CHL holder. Though Oregon claims to be a shall-issue state, there is still too much discretion for residents in terms of the "willies clause" in the statute, definitely too much discretion for contiguous state residents (it's may-issue fully), and does not issue to residents of non-contiguous states (WY, MT, UT).
When you eliminate the discretion involved, they cannot justify doing anything to the courts in terms of charging money for the $50 portion of the fee. The fingerprinting check, sure (which is already $15). But remember that the sheriff's are required by state law to charge the $50 fee, and cannot lower it, even in cases of indigent applicants (court case opportunity here).
If we get to the level that Sheriff's cannot have discretion and then cannot dote over applications to the point they have been because now it's a rubber stamp, and they cannot do a bunch of "investigation time" to justify that $50 to a federal court, the sheriff's will not want anything to do with it and will ask the legislature to repeal the concealed carry ban and remove the state preemption exemptions law (ORS 166.173). You win it politically, it won't come back, and you'll have Vermont/Arizona-style carry (without the problematic disclosure requirement that's in Alaska law...)
Getting back to the subject at hand. Legality and practicality are two completely different things. The federal district court of Oregon is not going to rule that you do not have to show your CHL in a plaintiff civil rights action against officers demanding your CHL, you refusing to disclose, and them arresting you for a crime under local law. The police will be covered by immunity principles under Ex Parte Young, even if you win the underlying case that says they cannot require it in the first place. Your lawyer will get court fees, and *maybe* you'll get your non-refundable bail money back, but that's about it.
Until we get some better case law out of SCOTUS in terms of identifying the right to carry already pre-existent, and some Federal District Court or 9th Circuit case law involving the applicability of such cases to California (currently being litigated in Richards v. Prieto in the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit), the best choice of options is to show the CHL to spare yourself the bail money and the arrest, and spare the rest of us bad case law which can bite us in the ass.