Can I carry a firearm in an Arkansas state park that sits on Army Corps of Engineers land?

Plain-English summary

State Senator Terry Rice asked what firearm-carry protections apply when an Arkansas state park is located on property managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The AG concluded that Arkansas law does not generally prohibit carrying a firearm in a state park, though it may prohibit a loaded firearm in a publicly owned building or facility unless an exception applies.

Federal law also applies on Corps-managed water-resources projects. The opinion describes 36 C.F.R. § 327.13 as barring specified weapons and ammunition unless the person is a federal, state, or local law enforcement officer; uses the weapon for hunting or fishing as permitted by Corps rules, with devices unloaded during transport; uses an authorized shooting range; or has written permission from the District Commander. State and local rules apply on Corps project property to the extent they do not conflict with federal law.

The AG discussed conflicting federal trial court decisions from Idaho and Georgia about the regulation's constitutionality. Neither binds Arkansas. The AG concluded that, in the absence of binding precedent in Arkansas, § 327.13 remained the applicable federal rule there. The opinion does not address whether a violation requires a particular mental state or what defenses, penalties, or enforcement procedures would apply.

What this means for you

State park visitors

The opinion distinguishes Arkansas's general state-park rule from the Corps rule on federally managed property. A state carry license is not among the four federal exceptions the AG lists. The opinion does not identify which parts of any named park are Corps-managed or determine how a visitor should establish a property boundary.

Hunters and anglers

The AG describes an exception for hunting or fishing as permitted by the Corps. Under the regulation quoted in the opinion, devices must be unloaded while transported to and from hunting or fishing sites. The opinion does not assess a particular site's hunting or fishing rules.

Park and Corps officials

The opinion says the Corps regulation remained in force in Arkansas when issued. It also notes a 2020 proposal to remove the written-permission requirement was not adopted. It does not prescribe signage, staff procedures, or the handling of suspected violations.

Common questions

Can I carry a firearm in an Arkansas state park on Corps-managed land?
The AG said state law generally does not prohibit firearms in state parks, but Corps-managed property is subject to the federal regulation and its four listed exceptions.

Does an Arkansas concealed-carry license itself satisfy a Corps exception?
The AG's list of federal exceptions does not include a state carry license. The opinion separately notes Arkansas exceptions for some publicly owned buildings and facilities.

What if I am hunting or fishing on Corps property?
The federal exception described by the AG applies where hunting or fishing is permitted under Corps rules, with the device unloaded during transport to and from the site.

Did a court ruling invalidate the Corps rule in Arkansas?
No binding Arkansas decision was identified. The AG explained that an Idaho federal trial court rejected the regulation there and a Georgia federal trial court upheld it, but neither decision controlled Arkansas.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion quotes A.C.A. § 5-73-122 for the state restriction on loaded firearms in publicly owned buildings or facilities and footnotes exceptions. It applies 36 C.F.R. § 327.13 to Corps water-resources projects, 18 U.S.C. § 930 to posted federal facilities, and 36 C.F.R. § 327.26(3) to the continued operation of nonconflicting state and local laws. Footnotes discuss the two federal trial court cases, Bruen, and an unadopted 2020 proposed federal rule.

Citations

• A.C.A. § 5-73-122(a)(1) (publicly owned buildings or facilities)
• 36 C.F.R. § 327.13 (Corps project property)
• 36 C.F.R. § 327.26(3) (nonconflicting state and local law)
• 18 U.S.C. § 930 (posted federal facilities)
• Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 60 F. Supp. 3d 1120 (D. Idaho 2014)
• GeorgiaCarry.org, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 212 F. Supp. 3d 1348 (N.D. Ga. 2016)

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2023-011
April 13, 2023
The Honorable Terry Rice
State Senator
Post Office Box 2195
Waldron, Arkansas 72958

Dear Senator Rice:

I am writing in response to your request for an official opinion regarding carrying a firearm on United States Army Corps of Engineers property. Your correspondence states:

Several Arkansas state parks are located on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers property. While state parks themselves are not firearms restricted, entering through Corps of Engineers' property is restricted.

Given the foregoing, you have asked the following question:

What protections, if any, do the people of Arkansas have while visiting our state parks located on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers property while carrying a firearm?

RESPONSE

While state law does not prohibit people from carrying a firearm in a state park, it might be unlawful for a person to carry a firearm into a building or facility located in a state park. And, under federal law, a person wishing to carry a firearm or other prohibited weapon onto property managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may do so only if the person (1) is a federal, state, or local law enforcement officer; (2) is using the weapon for hunting or fishing as permitted by federal regulations; (3) is using the weapon at an authorized shooting range; or (4) has written permission from the District Commander.

DISCUSSION

Your question requires an analysis of both state and federal law.

1. State law. Arkansas law does not generally prohibit carrying a firearm in a state park. However, state law does make it illegal for a person who is not law enforcement, security, or military personnel "to knowingly carry or possess a loaded firearm or other deadly weapon in any publicly owned building or facility...." There are a number of exceptions to this restriction, including an exception for enhanced concealed carry license holders. But unless one of these exceptions applies, it would be illegal for a person to knowingly carry or possess a loaded firearm in a building, office, or other facility in an Arkansas state park.

2. Federal law. Federal law prohibits the possession of loaded firearms, ammunition, loaded projectile firing devices, bows and arrows, crossbows, or other weapons at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) water resources development projects unless:

(1) They are in the possession of a federal, state, or local law enforcement officer;
(2) They are being used for hunting or fishing as permitted by the USACE, with devices being unloaded while being transported to and from hunting or fishing sites;
(3) They are being used at authorized shooting ranges; or
(4) Written permission has been received from the District Commander.

With certain exceptions, federal law also prohibits the possession of firearms and weapons in posted federal facilities, which would include USACE facilities. To the extent that state and local laws and ordinances regarding the use and possession of firearms or other weapons do not conflict with federal laws or regulations, those laws and ordinances apply on USACE project property as well.

The federal regulation limiting the possession and use of firearms on USACE property, 36 C.F.R. § 327.13, has been challenged in other jurisdictions with differing outcomes. In Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a federal trial court in Idaho declared 36 C.F.R. § 327.13 unconstitutional. While acknowledging USACE's right to regulate handguns on its property, the court found that USACE could not ban handguns altogether. The court rejected USACE's argument that its parks are a "sensitive place," reasoning that key U.S. Supreme Court precedent limited the "sensitive place" analysis to facilities like "schools and government buildings," rather than "outdoor parks." Consequently, the court enjoined the enforcement of 36 C.F.R. § 327.13 on USACE property in Idaho.

By contrast, a federal trial court in Georgia held in GeorgiaCarry.org, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that 36 C.F.R. § 327.13 did not violate the Second Amendment. The court reasoned that the military nature of the USACE dam and property at issue made it a "sensitive place" under key U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Also central to the court's decision was the fact that the regulation was "not an act of governance" but was "a managerial action affecting only government owned lands." The court reasoned that "there is a crucial difference, with respect to constitutional analysis, between the government exercising 'the power to regulate or license, as a lawmaker,' and the government acting 'as proprietor, to manage [its] internal operation.'"

While there is clearly some litigation in other jurisdictions on the constitutionality of 36 C.F.R. § 327.13, neither Morris nor GeorgiaCarry.org is binding in Arkansas. Given the absence of any binding precedent in Arkansas, 36 C.F.R. § 327.13 is still the law in Arkansas regarding the use and possession of firearms on USACE property.

3. Conclusion. In conclusion, state law does not prohibit the carrying of a firearm in an Arkansas state park, but it might be unlawful for a person to carry a firearm into a building or facility located in a state park. And, under federal law, a person wishing to carry a firearm or other prohibited weapon onto property managed by the USACE may do so only if the person (1) is a federal, state, or local law enforcement officer; (2) is using the weapon for hunting or fishing as permitted by USACE regulations; (3) is using the weapon at an authorized shooting range; or (4) has written permission from the District Commander.

Senior Assistant Attorney General Kelly Summerside prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.

Sincerely,

TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General

1 A.C.A. § 5-73-122(a)(1) (Supp. 2021). The legislature recently expanded the list of individuals who may knowingly carry or possess a loaded firearm or other deadly weapon in a publicly owned building or facility. Under Act 166 of 2023, that list now includes a member of a municipal fire department bomb squad who is authorized to carry a concealed handgun under the newly created A.C.A. § 12-15-204. Acts 2023, No. 166, § 3. This law, which is not yet effective, does not alter the analysis or conclusion of this opinion.

2 See A.C.A. §§ 5-73-122(a)(3), (b) (listing exceptions to the crime of carrying or possessing a firearm or other deadly weapon in a publicly owned building or facility or on the State Capitol grounds), 5-73-306 (Supp. 2021) (listing locations where concealed handguns are prohibited and exceptions to those prohibitions), 5-73-322 (Supp. 2021) (authorizing a licensee with a concealed carry endorsement to carry in certain locations and listing exceptions to this authorization).

3 See A.C.A. §§ 5-73-122(a)(3)(D), 5-73-322(h).

4 See 36 C.F.R. § 327.13(a).

5 See 18 U.S.C. § 930.

6 See 36 C.F.R. § 327.26(3).

7 60 F. Supp. 3d 1120 (D. Idaho 2014).

8 Id. at 1125.

9 Morris, 60 F. Supp. 3d at 1123–24 (referencing District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)).

10 Id. at 1125–26.

11 212 F. Supp. 3d 1348 (N.D. Ga. 2016).

12 See id. at 1361–62 (“Simply put, the Court cannot fathom that the framers of the Constitution would have recognized a civilian’s right to carry firearms on property owned and operated by the United States Military, especially when such property contained infrastructure products central to our national security and well being.”).

13 Id. at 1367.

14 Id. (quoting Engquist, v. Oregon Dept., of Agric., 553 U.S. 591 (2008)).

15 Both Morris and GeorgiaCarry.org were decided before New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022), which clarified the constitutional standard endorsed in Heller and rejected the “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that included an application of “means-ends scrutiny.” However, Bruen did not overturn either of these decisions, as 36 C.F.R. § 327.13 differs significantly from the unconstitutional New York law requiring “proper-cause” for a concealed carry license.

16 In 2020, the USACE published in the Federal Register a request for comments on a proposed revision to 36 C.F.R. § 327.13, which would remove the requirement that a person obtain written permission before possessing a weapon on a USACE project site. However, that proposed revision was not adopted. See Rules and Regulations Governing Public Use of Water Resource Development Projects Administered by the Chief of Engineers, 80 Fed. Reg. 20460-01 (proposed April 13, 2020).