Can the Arkansas AG explain who can carry a handgun in a courthouse or county building under Act 1024 of 2021?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2021. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Arkansas law, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Representative Richard McGrew asked the AG several questions about who can carry a handgun in a courtroom, courthouse, county administrative office, or other county-owned building, plus a question about how to interpret Act 1024 of 2021. Attorney General Leslie Rutledge declined to answer, citing two pending lawsuits in Pulaski County Circuit Court (Corbitt v. Pulaski County Jail and Corbitt v. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission) that raised the same issues.
The AG's office routinely declines to opine on questions actively before a court. The reasoning: the AG's office sits in the executive branch, the courts will resolve the legal questions through adversarial proceedings with full briefing and a binding judgment, and an advisory AG opinion in parallel risks treading on the judiciary's role and prejudicing the litigation. Once the courts rule, the legal landscape will be clearer than any opinion could make it.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in December 2021. The Corbitt cases referenced have likely been resolved (whether by judgment, settlement, or dismissal). The Arkansas legislature may have amended Act 1024 of 2021 since. Anyone asking about courthouse or county-building handgun carry today should look at the current statutes and any decisions in the Corbitt litigation, not at this declination.
What this means for you
If you are a courthouse security officer or sheriff
Per this opinion, the AG did not provide guidance on Act 1024 of 2021's handgun-carry rules in your buildings. Look at the current Arkansas Code (the chapter on carrying handguns; Ark. Code Ann. Title 5, Chapter 73), any subsequent AG opinions, and any reported decisions from the Corbitt litigation or other state cases. Your county's legal counsel should issue an internal directive based on current law.
If you are a concealed carry license holder
Do not assume any specific rule for courtroom or courthouse carry in Arkansas based on this opinion. The AG explicitly did not weigh in. The relevant statutes are detailed and have been actively litigated. Get specific advice from a firearms attorney before relying on a particular interpretation.
If you are a state legislator interested in clarifying Act 1024
The pending litigation will eventually produce a judicial reading. If the courts read Act 1024 differently than the legislature intended, follow-up legislation can correct it. The AG's declination here is structural, not substantive: when the courts speak, the agency steps back.
If you advise clients on Arkansas firearms law
This opinion is a non-event substantively but a reminder of the AG's pending-litigation policy. When seeking AG guidance on a topic, scan for active state-court cases that pose the same question. If they exist, the AG will typically defer.
Common questions
Q: What is Act 1024 of 2021?
A: Act 1024 of 2021 was an Arkansas legislative act dealing with concealed carry and certain government locations. The opinion does not summarize Act 1024's terms because it declined to opine. Anyone interpreting Act 1024 today should read the current codified version and any case law construing it.
Q: Why does the AG decline to opine on questions pending in court?
A: The AG's office is part of the executive branch. The courts are the proper forum for resolving disputed legal questions through adversarial briefing and binding judgments. AG opinions are advisory, not binding, and issuing one in parallel with active litigation risks the AG's office appearing to take sides or to prejudice the parties. The opinion cites Op. Att'y Gen. 2016-027 and 2015-140 as prior expressions of the same policy.
Q: Does this declination mean carrying a handgun in a courthouse is allowed?
A: No. The declination means the AG did not opine. The current rule is whatever the Arkansas Code and the courts say it is, not whatever inference one might draw from the AG's silence.
Q: Can someone else (the requester, a county) get an answer?
A: A trial court will eventually resolve the Corbitt cases or analogous litigation, and that resolution will provide judicial guidance. A subsequent AG opinion, after the litigation closes, may walk through the resulting framework.
Background and statutory framework
The pending-litigation declination is a long-standing AG practice in Arkansas (and most other states). The AG's role is to advise the executive branch and respond to requests from legislators, prosecuting attorneys, and certain other officials, but the office does not issue advisory opinions on issues already before the courts. Two reasons drive the practice:
- Branch separation. The judicial branch's job is to interpret the law in concrete cases. An AG opinion in parallel with active litigation can be read as an attempt by the executive to influence judicial analysis.
- Reliability. A court ruling, after full briefing and adversarial testing, is more reliable than a one-sided AG opinion. Issuing the opinion early risks reaching a conclusion the courts will then reject, eroding the AG's credibility.
When the courts conclude a pending case, the AG's office can revisit and opine if questions remain.
Citations and references
Pending cases referenced:
- Corbitt v. Pulaski County Jail, et al., No. 60CV-20-275 (Pulaski Cir., 2nd Div., January 9, 2020)
- Corbitt v. Ark. Game and Fish Commission, No. 60CV-21-4994 (Pulaski Cir., 12th Div., August 15, 2021)
Prior AG opinions on declination policy:
- Op. Att'y Gen. 2016-027
- Op. Att'y Gen. 2015-140
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2021-059
December 16, 2021
The Honorable Richard McGrew
State Representative
324 Ouachita Avenue
Hot Springs, AR 71901-5209
Dear Representative McGrew:
This is in response to your request for an opinion concerning certain revisions to Arkansas law during the 2021 legislative session. Specifically, you have asked a number of questions regarding the authority to carry a handgun in a courtroom, courthouse, county administrative office, and county-owned building, as well as a question regarding the proper interpretation of Act 1024 of 2021.
I must respectfully decline to issue an opinion on your questions because of pending litigation, the outcome of which could directly affect the issues you have raised. It is the long-standing policy of the Attorney General's office, as a member of the executive branch, to decline to issue opinions on matters that are pending before the courts for resolution.
I regret that I cannot be of assistance in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of future assistance in some other respect.
Sincerely,
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General
Note: See Corbitt v. Pulaski County Jail, et al., No. 60CV-20-275 (Pulaski Cir., 2nd Div., January 9, 2020); Corbitt v. Ark. Game and Fish Commission, No. 60CV-21-4994 (Pulaski Cir., 12th Div., August 15, 2021).
See also Ops. Att'y Gen. 2016-027, 2015-140 (and opinions cited therein).
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2021 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Arkansas statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.