Introduction
Over the past 6 years, concealed handgun license instructors at Arkansas Armory, Inc. have had the pleasure of serving thousands of Arkansans’ seeking to get or renew their Arkansas Concealed Handgun Carry License. In February, 2018 our instructors were among the first to offer the new “Enhanced” Training course. We regularly field questions about the law. Many Arkansans have stated their desire to change the law, making it more simple, understandable, and logical while helping them to defend themselves and their families.
Over the past 6 years, concealed handgun license instructors at Arkansas Armory, Inc. have had the pleasure of serving thousands of Arkansans’ seeking to get or renew their Arkansas Concealed Handgun Carry License. In February, 2018 our instructors were among the first to offer the new “Enhanced” Training course. We regularly field questions about the law. Many Arkansans have stated their desire to change the law, making it more simple, understandable, and logical while helping them to defend themselves and their families.
This report will summarize a list of requested changes for the 2019 Legislative Session and the reasoning behind the changes requested. It is our hope that the legislature will use this document to help understand some of the issues experienced by citizens related to carrying.
Issue 1 – State-run Offices Prohibiting Carry by Enhanced Licensees (posting signs)
Issue 2 – City and County Governments Prohibiting Carry by Enhanced Licensees (posting signs)
Issue 3 – Law Unintentionally Prevents Carry by Enhanced Licensees in State Offices co-located with County Offices (Revenue Office)
Issue 4 – Establishing Clarity on Signage that Prevents Entry by Licensees
Issue 5 – Carry is being prohibited at Locations of Administrative Hearings Even when No Hearing is in Progress
Issue 6 – The Alcoholic Beverage Control Division is using a different definition of “restaurant” than what is listed in the Concealed Carry Law
Issue 7 – Liability for Entities that Post Signs
Issue 8 – Freedom of Information Act Disclosures for the Existence of Approved Security Plans (not the content of the plans)
Issue 1 – State-run Offices Prohibiting Carry by Enhanced Licensees (posting signs)
Issue 2 – City and County Governments Prohibiting Carry by Enhanced Licensees (posting signs)
Issue 3 – Law Unintentionally Prevents Carry by Enhanced Licensees in State Offices co-located with County Offices (Revenue Office)
Issue 4 – Establishing Clarity on Signage that Prevents Entry by Licensees
Issue 5 – Carry is being prohibited at Locations of Administrative Hearings Even when No Hearing is in Progress
Issue 6 – The Alcoholic Beverage Control Division is using a different definition of “restaurant” than what is listed in the Concealed Carry Law
Issue 7 – Liability for Entities that Post Signs
Issue 8 – Freedom of Information Act Disclosures for the Existence of Approved Security Plans (not the content of the plans)
Issue #1: State-run Offices Prohibiting Carry by Enhanced Licensees (posting signs)
Explanation of the Issue
In 2017, the legislature passed A.C.A. § 5-73-322, the “Enhanced Concealed Carry” Law. As part of that law, persons who have completed the required training (henceforth “E-CHCL Licensees”) may possess a concealed handgun in state offices.
However, this has not prevented directors and managers within many state agencies from using loopholes in the law and opinions of the Attorney General to find ways to prohibit carry by E-CHCL Licensees.
For instance, in September 2018 the director of Arkansas State Parks ordered that a sign prohibiting carry be permanently attached to War Memorial Stadium.
Carry at War Memorial Stadium was already prohibited in three circumstances. First, if there is a “collegiate athletic event” with a security plan approved by the Arkansas State Police. Second, if there is a “K-12 Public School Event” such as a public high school football game. Third, if War Memorial is renting their facility to a 3rd party and they wish to prevent carry at their event.
However, carry by Enhanced Licensees would not be prohibited at events that don’t meet those criteria (such as car shows, charity events, worship events, etc.)
This has not stopped State Parks from finding a way to prohibit carry at all times, while at the same time letting our public universities off the hook for obtaining an approved security plan.
In February 2018, Senator Bill Sample asked Attorney General Rutledge if the law allowed a state agency that was licensed to sell alcohol to put up a sign and prohibit carry by E-CHCL Licensees. In Attorney General Opinion 2017-062, Mrs. Rutledge replied, “Yes”.
Referencing § 5-73-306(11)(B), § 5-73-306(12)(B), and AG Opinion 2017-062, the director of Arkansas State Parks chose to put up signs prohibiting carry. Since War Memorial Stadium is a facility that is “licensed” to sell alcoholic beverages, they can put up a sign and prohibit carry by all licensees at all times, even when they are not serving alcoholic beverages at the time.
By using this loophole to prohibit carry at all events, it not only restricts the rights of Arkansans, it also lets our public universities off the hook for obtaining an approved security plan (required by § 5-73-325) prior to preventing carry at “collegiate athletic events”. Since carry is already prohibited, there is no need for them to go through the process.
To be clear, the law does not require agencies that are licensed to sell alcoholic beverages to put up these signs. Our state agencies are choosing to put them up, despite clear legislative intent to allow E-CHCL Licensees to carry in State Offices.
We also regularly hear from students that work for other state offices that their managers have communicated to them that they are not allowed to carry while on the job, regardless of their E-CHCL license. The legal justification behind their manager’s orders isn’t clear, but without guidance from the legislature some supervisors will continue to impose their personal beliefs about guns onto our citizens.
Proposed Solution:
Summary:
Remove the ability state agencies have to prohibit E-CHCL Licensees from carrying in places they run that are licensed to sell alcohol. Next, prohibit them from posting signs or otherwise providing notice to E-CHCL Licensees that they cannot carry, unless the place is otherwise prohibited (a courthouse, courtroom, or prison for instance). Finally, clarify that the “discretion” to put up signs is not in the hands of city, town, county, or state employees – it rests in the hands of the will of the people and the legislature.
Detail:
First - Create § 5-73-306(11)(C) and § 5-73-306(12)(C) with language similar to:
(C) Under this subdivision, a state, city, town, or county run agency or government may not place a written notice as described under subdivision (18) of this section or provide notice under subdivision (19) of this section prohibiting a licensee, who completed a training course and obtained a concealed carry endorsement under § 5-73-322(g), from possessing a concealed handgun at the physical location.
Second – Create § 5-73-322(k) with language similar to:
(k) A state, city, town, or county run agency or government may not place a written notice as described under § 5-73-306(18) or provide notice under § 5-73-306(19) prohibiting a licensee, who completed a training course and obtained a concealed carry endorsement under subsection (g) of this section, from possessing a concealed handgun at the physical location, unless otherwise allowed by this section or § 5-73-306.
Third – Create § 5-73-306(18)(A)(v) with language similar to:
(v) State, city, town, or county run agencies, governments, and their employees are not considered to be “an entity exercising control over the physical location of the place”, by this section
OR Amend § 5-73-306(18)(A)(i) to read:
(i) Any private place at the discretion of the person or entity exercising control over the physical location of the place by placing at each entrance to the place a written notice clearly readable at a distance of not less than ten feet (10') that in written language identical to the following: "Carrying a Handgun is Prohibited".
Issue #2: City and County Governments Prohibiting Carry by Enhanced Licensees (posting signs)
Explanation of the Issue
Since 1993, A.C.A. § 14-54-1411(b)(1) and § 14-16-504(b)(1) has established state-level preemption of firearm laws. The legislature has reserved the exclusive right to pass laws regarding “the ownership, transfer, transportation, carrying, or possession of firearms, ammunition for firearms, or components of firearms.”
These two laws expressly prohibit cities, towns, and counties from enacting any ordinance or regulation pertaining to the carry of firearms. However, because the law goes on to say, “except as otherwise provided in state or federal law”, some cities are arguing that they are an “entity” that can post signs or provide notice that carry isn’t allowed (per § 5-73-306(18) or § 5-73-306(19))
The Municipal League cites Attorney General Opinions from 2003 (Mike Beebe No. 2003-024) and 2013 (Dustin McDaniel No. 2013-013) who opined that cities are “entities” that may post signs. These opinions appear to be without regard to § 14-16-504 or § 14-54-1411.
As a result, some cities, like the City of Little Rock, are posting signs that prohibit carry by E-CHCL Licensees, who are otherwise exempted from the prohibitions and restrictions on carrying into “public buildings and facilities” by § 5-73-322(h).
Further, when city facilities are licensed to sell alcoholic beverages, they are citing their legal right to prohibit E-CHCL Licensees (see Issue #1 above).
Because it is already unlawful (under § 5-73-122) for “regular” CHCL Licensees to carry into “publicly owned buildings and facilities”, carry by Enhanced CHCL Licensees is the only subject that needs to be addressed.
Proposed Solution:
Summary:
Clarify that local units of government cannot prohibit carry by E-CHCL Licensees. First, remove the ability local units of governments have to prohibit E-CHCL Licensees from carrying in places they run that are licensed to sell alcohol. Next, prohibit them from posting signs or otherwise providing notice to E-CHCL Licensees. Finally, make clear to E-CHCL licensees, that any existing signs may be disregarded by the E-CHCL licensee, unless the place is otherwise prohibited (a courthouse, courtroom, or jail for instance).
Detail:
First - Implement the solution from Issue #1 above.
Second - Create § 14-16-504(b)(1)(C) with language similar to:
(C) A local unit of government may not place a written notice as described under § 5-73-306(18) or provide notice under § 5-73-306(19) prohibiting a licensee, who completed a training course and obtained a concealed carry endorsement under § 5-73-322(g), from possessing a concealed handgun at the physical location.
(i) Any written notice, as described under § 5-73-306(18), or provided notice, under § 5-73-306(19), prohibiting carry at publicly owned buildings or facilities, run by a local unit of government, have no legal effect on, and may be disregarded by licensees who have completed a training course and obtained a concealed carry endorsement under § 5-73-322(g), unless the place is otherwise prohibited by § 5-73-306 or other parts of state or federal law.
Third - Create § 14-54-1411(b)(1)(C) with language similar to:
(C) A local unit of government may not place a written notice as described under § 5-73-306(18) or provide notice under § 5-73-306(19) prohibiting a licensee, who completed a training course and obtained a concealed carry endorsement under § 5-73-322(g), from possessing a concealed handgun at the physical location.
(i) Any written notice, as described under § 5-73-306(18), or provided notice, under § 5-73-306(19), prohibiting carry at publicly owned buildings or facilities, run by a local unit of government, have no legal effect on, and may be disregarded by licensees who have completed a training course and obtained a concealed carry endorsement under § 5-73-322(g), unless the place is otherwise prohibited by § 5-73-306 or other parts of state or federal law.
Issue #3: Law Unintentionally Prevents Carry by Enhanced Licensees in State Offices co-located with County Offices (Revenue Office)
Explanation of the Issue
A.C.A. § 5-73-306 (5) prevents all CHCL Licensees from carrying into “Any courthouse, courthouse annex, or other building owned, leased, or regularly used by a county for conducting court proceedings or housing a county office”
The intent behind this language is to prevent all licensees from carrying into courthouses and courtrooms.
However, with the addition of the new E-CHCL, Enhanced Licensees are now allowed to carry into state offices. The most common example of state – citizen interaction occurs at the Department of Finance and Administration (Revenue) Offices. One of the central pillars of intent behind the new E-CHCL program was to allow specially trained citizens to carry as they conduct their routine business with the state.
As we break down the language of § 5-73-306 (5) we can see that it any “building” “housing a county office” remains a prohibited place for E-CHCL Licensees. With most Revenue Offices co-located with the office of the county treasurer, this language prevents E-CHCL licensees from carrying, despite the legislative intent in 2017.
Proposed Solution:
Summary: Change the language of § 5-73-306 (5) to allow for carry by E-CHCL Licensees in Revenue Offices.
Detail:
First - Implement the solution from Issue #1 above (to prevent individual state employees / managers from deciding to disallow carry).
Second - Create § 5-73-306(5)(D) with language similar to:
(D) The prohibition on carrying into a building housing a county office does not apply to a licensee who has completed a training course and obtained a concealed carry endorsement under § 5-73-322(g), so long as the building housing the county office does not also contain a courthouse, courtroom, or an active administrative hearing taking place at that time.
Explanation of the Issue
A.C.A. § 5-73-306 (5) prevents all CHCL Licensees from carrying into “Any courthouse, courthouse annex, or other building owned, leased, or regularly used by a county for conducting court proceedings or housing a county office”
The intent behind this language is to prevent all licensees from carrying into courthouses and courtrooms.
However, with the addition of the new E-CHCL, Enhanced Licensees are now allowed to carry into state offices. The most common example of state – citizen interaction occurs at the Department of Finance and Administration (Revenue) Offices. One of the central pillars of intent behind the new E-CHCL program was to allow specially trained citizens to carry as they conduct their routine business with the state.
As we break down the language of § 5-73-306 (5) we can see that it any “building” “housing a county office” remains a prohibited place for E-CHCL Licensees. With most Revenue Offices co-located with the office of the county treasurer, this language prevents E-CHCL licensees from carrying, despite the legislative intent in 2017.
Proposed Solution:
Summary: Change the language of § 5-73-306 (5) to allow for carry by E-CHCL Licensees in Revenue Offices.
Detail:
First - Implement the solution from Issue #1 above (to prevent individual state employees / managers from deciding to disallow carry).
Second - Create § 5-73-306(5)(D) with language similar to:
(D) The prohibition on carrying into a building housing a county office does not apply to a licensee who has completed a training course and obtained a concealed carry endorsement under § 5-73-322(g), so long as the building housing the county office does not also contain a courthouse, courtroom, or an active administrative hearing taking place at that time.
Issue #4: Establishing Clarity on Signage that Prevents Entry by Licensees
Explanation of the Issue:
One of the most confusing areas of Arkansas Concealed Carry Licensees is understanding what is a “Legal Sign” that prevents them from carrying into a place. States, like Texas, have established the sign requirements with unmatched clarity, through their statutes like Texas Penal Code § 30.06 & § 30.07.
In order to for entities to exercise their discretion to keep licensed individuals out of their establishments Texas requires extremely specific signage. Their laws spell out that “language identical to the following…” is required.
Arkansas law is not as specific, and confusion abounds.
For instance, does a diagram of a gun with a slash through it intend to keep out ALL guns (including police officers), concealed licensees, unlicensed individuals, or just criminals with guns? Does that same diagram meet the statutory definition listed in A.C.A. § 5-73-306 (18)? I would answer “No” because it does not contain the specific language stating “Carrying a handgun is prohibited”, as required by the statute. However, would a sign stating “Weapons of Any Kind Are Prohibited On These Premises, Regardless of A Concealed-Carry Permit” count (this is the exact language used on the signs placed on War Memorial by State Parks)? It too doesn’t meet the specified language in A.C.A. § 5-73-306(18), yet a judge would likely conclude that its intent is clear.
A.C.A. § 5-73-306(18) defines the signage requirements. It also describes the sign as “written notice”.
Last year, the legislature passed a bill adding the language of A.C.A. § 5-73-306(19). This says that private entities don’t have to post notice but can instead provide written or verbal notice that carrying of a concealed handgun is prohibited. There are no quotation marks around this language, seeming to indicate that any verbal or written notice provided by a private entity suffices, regardless of its clarity or lack thereof.
This then creates the confusion as to whether or not the gun-with-a-slash diagram actually counts as “written notice” now, since signage is described in A.C.A. § 5-73-306(18) as a “written notice”.
Further, there is the confusion on whether or not the message sent by the private entity counts as message received by the licensee.
Does a notice on a website count? Does a notice that is written in an obscure area of the business count? Does the proprietor have to physically walk up and tell the licensee or hand them a note? Does a licensee have to read every line of every piece of paper that any business hands them? Does all of the fine print on the back of a ticket stub count as “written notice”?
For churches, does printing something in the bulletin count? Even so, how do we know if a licensee has been notified? What if they didn’t get a bulletin? Is a licensee now required to read everything in their environment at all times? Are they required to read every line of every fine print document that they come into contact with?
The language of A.C.A. § 5-73-306(18) was confusing enough, and in 2017 the legislature placed an unrealistic burden on all licensees through the passage of A.C.A. § 5-73-306 (19).
I understand that many businesses don’t want to take a stand on this issue. Many have lobbied to not have to post a sign. However, businesses in the state of Texas have adapted through their postings of specific language (§ 30.06 & § 30.07 signs), if a private entity wants to keep licensees out.
Arkansans deserve clarity.
Proposed Solution:
Summary: Repeal § 5-73-306 (19). Next, clarify the language of § 5-73-306 (18) to indicate that extremely specific notice is required in order to prevent licensees from carrying into an establishment.
Detail:
First - Repeal § 5-73-306 (19)
Second – Amend § 5-73-306 (18) (A) (i) to read
(i) Any private place at the discretion of the person or entity exercising control over the physical location of the place by placing at each entrance to the place a written notice clearly readable at a distance of not less than ten feet (10') that in written language identical to the following: "Carrying a Handgun is Prohibited".
Explanation of the Issue:
One of the most confusing areas of Arkansas Concealed Carry Licensees is understanding what is a “Legal Sign” that prevents them from carrying into a place. States, like Texas, have established the sign requirements with unmatched clarity, through their statutes like Texas Penal Code § 30.06 & § 30.07.
In order to for entities to exercise their discretion to keep licensed individuals out of their establishments Texas requires extremely specific signage. Their laws spell out that “language identical to the following…” is required.
Arkansas law is not as specific, and confusion abounds.
For instance, does a diagram of a gun with a slash through it intend to keep out ALL guns (including police officers), concealed licensees, unlicensed individuals, or just criminals with guns? Does that same diagram meet the statutory definition listed in A.C.A. § 5-73-306 (18)? I would answer “No” because it does not contain the specific language stating “Carrying a handgun is prohibited”, as required by the statute. However, would a sign stating “Weapons of Any Kind Are Prohibited On These Premises, Regardless of A Concealed-Carry Permit” count (this is the exact language used on the signs placed on War Memorial by State Parks)? It too doesn’t meet the specified language in A.C.A. § 5-73-306(18), yet a judge would likely conclude that its intent is clear.
A.C.A. § 5-73-306(18) defines the signage requirements. It also describes the sign as “written notice”.
Last year, the legislature passed a bill adding the language of A.C.A. § 5-73-306(19). This says that private entities don’t have to post notice but can instead provide written or verbal notice that carrying of a concealed handgun is prohibited. There are no quotation marks around this language, seeming to indicate that any verbal or written notice provided by a private entity suffices, regardless of its clarity or lack thereof.
This then creates the confusion as to whether or not the gun-with-a-slash diagram actually counts as “written notice” now, since signage is described in A.C.A. § 5-73-306(18) as a “written notice”.
Further, there is the confusion on whether or not the message sent by the private entity counts as message received by the licensee.
Does a notice on a website count? Does a notice that is written in an obscure area of the business count? Does the proprietor have to physically walk up and tell the licensee or hand them a note? Does a licensee have to read every line of every piece of paper that any business hands them? Does all of the fine print on the back of a ticket stub count as “written notice”?
For churches, does printing something in the bulletin count? Even so, how do we know if a licensee has been notified? What if they didn’t get a bulletin? Is a licensee now required to read everything in their environment at all times? Are they required to read every line of every fine print document that they come into contact with?
The language of A.C.A. § 5-73-306(18) was confusing enough, and in 2017 the legislature placed an unrealistic burden on all licensees through the passage of A.C.A. § 5-73-306 (19).
I understand that many businesses don’t want to take a stand on this issue. Many have lobbied to not have to post a sign. However, businesses in the state of Texas have adapted through their postings of specific language (§ 30.06 & § 30.07 signs), if a private entity wants to keep licensees out.
Arkansans deserve clarity.
Proposed Solution:
Summary: Repeal § 5-73-306 (19). Next, clarify the language of § 5-73-306 (18) to indicate that extremely specific notice is required in order to prevent licensees from carrying into an establishment.
Detail:
First - Repeal § 5-73-306 (19)
Second – Amend § 5-73-306 (18) (A) (i) to read
(i) Any private place at the discretion of the person or entity exercising control over the physical location of the place by placing at each entrance to the place a written notice clearly readable at a distance of not less than ten feet (10') that in written language identical to the following: "Carrying a Handgun is Prohibited".
Issue #5: Carry is being prohibited at Locations of Administrative Hearings Even when No Hearing is in Progress
Explanation of the Issue:
State run entities, namely the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission regularly hold public meetings at their facilities. They are prohibiting E-CHCL Licensees from attending these public meetings with their handgun. They cite § 5-73-122(b)(D)(i) which prohibits carry by E-CHCL Licensees into “the location of an administrative hearing conducted by a state agency”.
Even though an active administrative hearing is not taking place at the time of the public meeting, they contend that because these hearings sometimes take place at the same location, they can ban carry at all times (even when there are no hearings taking place).
Further, they contend that they are an “entity” and can choose to prohibit carry at any time by putting up a sign or giving notice under § 5-73-306 (18).
Proposed Solution:
Summary: Change the wording of 5-73-122(b)(D)(i) to only disallow carry while an administrative hearing is being conducted.
Detail:
First - Implement the solution from Issue #1 above (to prevent individual state employees / managers from deciding to disallow carry).
Second - Amend § 5-73-122(b)(D)(i) to language similar to:
(i) A courtroom or the location of an ongoing administrative hearing conducted by a state agency, except as permitted by § 5-73-306(5) or § 5-73-306(6);
Explanation of the Issue:
State run entities, namely the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission regularly hold public meetings at their facilities. They are prohibiting E-CHCL Licensees from attending these public meetings with their handgun. They cite § 5-73-122(b)(D)(i) which prohibits carry by E-CHCL Licensees into “the location of an administrative hearing conducted by a state agency”.
Even though an active administrative hearing is not taking place at the time of the public meeting, they contend that because these hearings sometimes take place at the same location, they can ban carry at all times (even when there are no hearings taking place).
Further, they contend that they are an “entity” and can choose to prohibit carry at any time by putting up a sign or giving notice under § 5-73-306 (18).
Proposed Solution:
Summary: Change the wording of 5-73-122(b)(D)(i) to only disallow carry while an administrative hearing is being conducted.
Detail:
First - Implement the solution from Issue #1 above (to prevent individual state employees / managers from deciding to disallow carry).
Second - Amend § 5-73-122(b)(D)(i) to language similar to:
(i) A courtroom or the location of an ongoing administrative hearing conducted by a state agency, except as permitted by § 5-73-306(5) or § 5-73-306(6);
Issue #6: The Alcoholic Beverage Control Division is using a different definition of “restaurant” than what is listed in the Concealed Carry Law
Explanation of the Issue:
The Alcoholic Beverage Control Division is tasked to promulgate rules and regulations affecting establishments that are licensed to sell alcoholic beverages. These businesses are tasked with enforcing these regulations on the citizens they serve.
For instance, Title 1, Subtitle G lists “Prohibited Conduct” for a ABC permittee. Rule #33 states that it is a violation of the rules if the ABC permittee allowed a person to carry a weapon on the premises unless that person is a law enforcement officer or a security guard. This rule states that it is permissible for a citizen to carry if the place is a restaurant using the definition found at § 3-9-202(16). However, the concealed handgun law states that it is permissible for a citizen to carry if the place is a restaurant using the definition found in § 3-5-1202(11).
These definitions are substantially different. The ABC’s definition of restaurant is significantly more restrictive than the definition used in the concealed handgun law. This allows them, through rulemaking, to restrict a citizen’s right to carry into places that go beyond that allowed in actual concealed carry law.
The legislature and the Arkansas State Police are the lead entities responsible for promulgating rules and regulations about weapons. State law and policy has shifted significantly over the past 10 years. We feel that regulations created by the ABC are duplicative, more restrictive than the legislature would have intended, and confusing for citizens to research and understand. The ABC should be in the business of regulating alcoholic beverage licensing, not state weapon policy.
Proposed Solution:
Summary: Draft a bill stating that the ABC Division shall not have the authority to promulgate rules and regulations pertaining to weapons. The appropriate agency for this is the Arkansas State Police.
Detail:
Work with the BLR to draft a bill stating that the ABC Division shall not have the authority to promulgate rules and regulations pertaining to weapons. The appropriate agency for this is the Arkansas State Police.
Explanation of the Issue:
The Alcoholic Beverage Control Division is tasked to promulgate rules and regulations affecting establishments that are licensed to sell alcoholic beverages. These businesses are tasked with enforcing these regulations on the citizens they serve.
For instance, Title 1, Subtitle G lists “Prohibited Conduct” for a ABC permittee. Rule #33 states that it is a violation of the rules if the ABC permittee allowed a person to carry a weapon on the premises unless that person is a law enforcement officer or a security guard. This rule states that it is permissible for a citizen to carry if the place is a restaurant using the definition found at § 3-9-202(16). However, the concealed handgun law states that it is permissible for a citizen to carry if the place is a restaurant using the definition found in § 3-5-1202(11).
These definitions are substantially different. The ABC’s definition of restaurant is significantly more restrictive than the definition used in the concealed handgun law. This allows them, through rulemaking, to restrict a citizen’s right to carry into places that go beyond that allowed in actual concealed carry law.
The legislature and the Arkansas State Police are the lead entities responsible for promulgating rules and regulations about weapons. State law and policy has shifted significantly over the past 10 years. We feel that regulations created by the ABC are duplicative, more restrictive than the legislature would have intended, and confusing for citizens to research and understand. The ABC should be in the business of regulating alcoholic beverage licensing, not state weapon policy.
Proposed Solution:
Summary: Draft a bill stating that the ABC Division shall not have the authority to promulgate rules and regulations pertaining to weapons. The appropriate agency for this is the Arkansas State Police.
Detail:
Work with the BLR to draft a bill stating that the ABC Division shall not have the authority to promulgate rules and regulations pertaining to weapons. The appropriate agency for this is the Arkansas State Police.
Issue #7: Liability for Entities that Post Signs
Explanation of the Issue:
In 2016, the Tennessee State Senate debated SB 1736, a bill defining liability for firearm exclusion in certain locations. The bill was intended to “balance the right of a handgun carry permit holder to carry a firearm in order to exercise the right of self-defense and the ability of a property owner or entity in charge of the property to exercise control over governmental or private property.”
If an entity (business, government, etc) posted a “no guns allowed” sign, prohibiting permit holders from carrying into their establishment, that entity would assume responsibility and liability for the safety and defense of the permit holder while they were in the establishment.
If a business or other entity posts a sign disallowing carry by lawful permit holders, they then have the obligation to protect the people in their establishment, on their way to and from the establishment. If they disarm licensees and then fail to protect them, they are responsible.
Proposed Solution:
Work with the BLR to draft legislation similar to the 2015 / 2016 version of Tennessee SB 1736.
See attachment for a copy of SB 1736 for further details.
Issue #8: Freedom of Information Act Disclosures for the Existence of Approved Security Plans (not the content of the plans)
Explanation of the Issue:
In 2017 A.C.A. § 5-73-325 Firearm-sensitive areas – Security plan approval was enacted. “Security Plans” are required in order for a collegiate athletic event to qualify as a “firearm sensitive area”, which then allows the college or university to disallow carry.
Under § 5-73-325(e) security plans submitted under this section are exempt from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
This is a good thing. We don’t want criminals and terrorists to know the contents of the security plans. The contents of these plans should remain exempt from public disclosure.
However, the existence of an approved security plan is critical information for the public to have.
While the public should reasonably expect approved security plans for major athletic events (i.e. Razorback football / basketball games), how is a member of the public to know if a minor event, such as a track and field event, or a swim meet, actually has an approved plan?
One can imagine a scenario in which the athletic director of a university directs workers to “put out the no gun signs” because it’s on the checklist of things to do to prepare for an athletic event. Workers dutifully put out the signs, disallowing carry, without the event actually having an approved plan.
Because of the loose wording of § 5-73-325(e), the public has no way to hold a university accountable for actually having an approved security plan.
Proposed Solution:
Summary: Add a subsection to § 5-73-325(e) to indicate that the existence of an approved or disapproved security plan is releasable under the Freedom of Information Act.
Detail:
Amend § 5-73-325(e) to read:
(e) The contents of a security plan submitted under this section are exempt from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act of 1967, § 25-19-101 et seq.
(1) Upon request by the public, under the Freedom of Information Act of 1967, § 25-19-101 et seq., the department shall disclose the existence or nonexistence of an approved or disapproved security plan.
Summary
With these 8 changes, Arkansans will be better equipped to follow the law while protecting themselves and their families.
Explanation of the Issue:
In 2016, the Tennessee State Senate debated SB 1736, a bill defining liability for firearm exclusion in certain locations. The bill was intended to “balance the right of a handgun carry permit holder to carry a firearm in order to exercise the right of self-defense and the ability of a property owner or entity in charge of the property to exercise control over governmental or private property.”
If an entity (business, government, etc) posted a “no guns allowed” sign, prohibiting permit holders from carrying into their establishment, that entity would assume responsibility and liability for the safety and defense of the permit holder while they were in the establishment.
If a business or other entity posts a sign disallowing carry by lawful permit holders, they then have the obligation to protect the people in their establishment, on their way to and from the establishment. If they disarm licensees and then fail to protect them, they are responsible.
Proposed Solution:
Work with the BLR to draft legislation similar to the 2015 / 2016 version of Tennessee SB 1736.
See attachment for a copy of SB 1736 for further details.
Issue #8: Freedom of Information Act Disclosures for the Existence of Approved Security Plans (not the content of the plans)
Explanation of the Issue:
In 2017 A.C.A. § 5-73-325 Firearm-sensitive areas – Security plan approval was enacted. “Security Plans” are required in order for a collegiate athletic event to qualify as a “firearm sensitive area”, which then allows the college or university to disallow carry.
Under § 5-73-325(e) security plans submitted under this section are exempt from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
This is a good thing. We don’t want criminals and terrorists to know the contents of the security plans. The contents of these plans should remain exempt from public disclosure.
However, the existence of an approved security plan is critical information for the public to have.
While the public should reasonably expect approved security plans for major athletic events (i.e. Razorback football / basketball games), how is a member of the public to know if a minor event, such as a track and field event, or a swim meet, actually has an approved plan?
One can imagine a scenario in which the athletic director of a university directs workers to “put out the no gun signs” because it’s on the checklist of things to do to prepare for an athletic event. Workers dutifully put out the signs, disallowing carry, without the event actually having an approved plan.
Because of the loose wording of § 5-73-325(e), the public has no way to hold a university accountable for actually having an approved security plan.
Proposed Solution:
Summary: Add a subsection to § 5-73-325(e) to indicate that the existence of an approved or disapproved security plan is releasable under the Freedom of Information Act.
Detail:
Amend § 5-73-325(e) to read:
(e) The contents of a security plan submitted under this section are exempt from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act of 1967, § 25-19-101 et seq.
(1) Upon request by the public, under the Freedom of Information Act of 1967, § 25-19-101 et seq., the department shall disclose the existence or nonexistence of an approved or disapproved security plan.
Summary
With these 8 changes, Arkansans will be better equipped to follow the law while protecting themselves and their families.
RSS Feed