Does an Arkansas sheriff need the county judge's approval to award a retiring deputy his service pistol, given that the county judge controls disposal of county property?

Plain-English summary

An Arkansas sheriff may award a retiring deputy the service pistol the deputy carried at retirement without the county judge’s approval under A.C.A. § 12-15-302, the Attorney General concludes. This is different from a retiring or honorably departing deputy’s purchase of an issued firearm under A.C.A. § 12-15-301, which requires the county judge’s approval and payment of fair market value.

The opinion reads three statutes together. A.C.A. § 14-14-1102(3)(A) generally puts county property in the county judge’s custody and provides for disposal according to law. The more specific A.C.A. § 12-15-302 addresses the honorary award of a service pistol to a retiring or deceased deputy or a deceased deputy’s spouse. That specific statute contains no county-judge-approval requirement.

The Attorney General also points to the legislature’s different wording: it expressly required county judge approval for a purchase in § 12-15-301 but omitted that requirement for an award in § 12-15-302. Reading approval into both would make the express clause in the purchase statute unnecessary. The opinion does not address whether a quorum court may regulate the award by ordinance or any administrative process for recording the transfer.

What this means for you

County sheriffs

For the honorary award of a retiring deputy’s carried service pistol under A.C.A. § 12-15-302, the opinion says the sheriff does not need county judge approval. It does not address other equipment or any additional administrative requirements.

Retiring and honorably departing deputies

The opinion distinguishes an honorary award under § 12-15-302 from a fair-market-value purchase under § 12-15-301. The purchase provision requires county judge approval; the opinion concludes the award provision does not.

County judges

The opinion says the county judge’s general authority over county property under § 14-14-1102(3)(A) yields to the specific honorary-award provision in § 12-15-302 for the described service pistol. It preserves the express county judge approval requirement for a purchase under § 12-15-301.

Common questions

Does a sheriff need county judge approval to award a retiring deputy’s service pistol?

No. The opinion concludes that A.C.A. § 12-15-302 allows that award without county judge approval.

Does a retiring deputy need approval to buy an issued firearm?

Yes. The opinion describes A.C.A. § 12-15-301 as allowing a retiring or honorably departing deputy to buy an issued firearm at fair market value contingent on the county judge’s approval.

Why do the award and purchase provisions have different approval rules?

The Attorney General says the legislature included an approval clause in the purchase provision but not in the award provision. Reading the same approval requirement into both would make the express purchase clause surplusage.

Does this opinion decide whether the quorum court can require approval by ordinance?

No. The request and the opinion address whether the sheriff needs county judge approval under the three statutes discussed. They do not address a quorum court ordinance.

Background and statutory framework

A.C.A. § 12-15-301 allows a retiring or honorably departing deputy sheriff to buy an issued firearm at fair market value with county judge approval. A.C.A. § 12-15-302 allows the county sheriff to award the service pistol carried by a retiring or deceased deputy at retirement or death. A.C.A. § 14-14-1102(3)(A) gives the county judge custody of county property and the right to dispose of it according to law.

The opinion applies the rule that specific statutes take precedence over general ones and the rule that statutory words should not be made surplusage. It treats § 12-15-302 as the specific rule for the honorary service-pistol award and § 14-14-1102(3)(A) as the general county-property rule. It treats the approval clause in § 12-15-301 as meaningful because the parallel award provision lacks it.

Citations

Statutes:

• A.C.A. § 12-15-301
• A.C.A. § 12-15-302
• A.C.A. § 14-14-1102(3)(A)

Cases:

• Thomas v. State, 349 Ark. 447, 454, 79 S.W.3d 347, 351 (2002)
• Searcy Farm Supply, LLC v. Merchants & Planters Bank (citation in the original opinion footnote)
• Donoho v. Donoho, 318 Ark. 637, 639–40, 887 S.W.2d 290, 291 (1994)
• Locke v. Cook, 245 Ark. 787, 793, 434 S.W.2d 598, 601 (1968)

Source

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

Original opinion text

BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Opinion No. 2025-083
December 17, 2025
The Honorable Steve Unger
State Representative
Post Office Box 1262
Springdale, Arkansas 72765
Dear Representative Unger:
I am writing in response to your request for an opinion on what you have identified as a potential statutory conflict regarding the county sheriff’s authority to award a service pistol to a retiring deputy sheriff. You state that under A.C.A. § 12-15-302, when a deputy sheriff retires from service, the sheriff may award the retiring deputy the pistol the deputy carried at the time of his or her retirement. Yet A.C.A. § 14-14-1102(3)(A) provides that the county judge is responsible for the disposal of county property, and A.C.A. § 12-15-301 allows a retiring deputy to purchase the firearm issued to the deputy only if the county judge approves the purchase. Against this background, you ask the following question: Under A.C.A. § 12-15-302, does a sheriff have to receive approval from the county judge to award the retiring deputy his issued pistol as required under A.C.A.
§ 12-15-301, or does A.C.A. § 12-15-302 allow a sheriff to make this decision on his own without approval from the county judge? RESPONSE Under A.C.A. § 12-15-302, a county sheriff may award a retiring deputy sheriff the pistol carried by the deputy at the time of his or her retirement without obtaining approval from the county judge. DISCUSSION You have identified three statutes as relevant to your question:

1. Arkansas Code § 12-15-301 permits a retiring or honorably departing deputy sheriff to
   purchase his or her issued firearm for its fair market value, contingent upon the county judge’s approval; TIM GRIFFIN ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Honorable Steve Unger
State Representative
Opinion No. 2025-083
Page 2

2. Arkansas Code § 12-15-302 allows the county sheriff to award a retiring or deceased
   deputy or deputy’s spouse the service pistol carried by the deputy at the time of his or her death or retirement; and
3. Arkansas Code § 14-14-1102(3)(A) vests the county judge with custody of county
   property, including the right to dispose of county property in accordance with the law. Statutes that concern the same subject matter must be construed harmoniously if possible.1 And, in my opinion, the three statutes you have cited can be read together harmoniously. Two principles of statutory construction guide the analysis: the general/specific canon and the rule against surplusage.
4. General/specific canon. Under this canon of statutory construction, specific statutes take
   precedence over general statutes.2
   So if a specific statute covers a particular subject matter, the general statute does not apply.3 In this case, A.C.A. § 14-14-1102(3)(A) is a general provision concerning the administration of county property. By contrast, A.C.A. § 12-15-302 is a specific statute governing a narrow circumstance: the honorary award of a service pistol to a deputy sheriff upon his or her retirement or death. This is the exact situation you have asked about. Thus, A.C.A.
   § 12-15-302—which allows a sheriff to award a service pistol to a retiring deputy and contains no requirement for county judge approval—controls.
5. Rule against surplusage. Because A.C.A. § 12-15-301 requires county judge approval of a
   firearm purchase by a retiring deputy, you question whether such approval may also be required for the award of a pistol to a retiring deputy under A.C.A. § 12-15-302, which is silent on the matter. But a common rule of statutory construction is to give effect to each word of a statute so that no language is reduced to surplusage.4 If we read both A.C.A. § 12-15-301 and § 12-15-302 to require county judge approval, but only one of the statutes includes a clause with that requirement, then the inclusion of that clause becomes surplusage. If the General Assembly wanted to require county judge approval for the award of a service pistol to a retiring deputy, it knew how to do so in unambiguous language. Thus, we can presume that the General Assembly’s omission of such language from A.C.A. § 12-15-302 is intentional: county judge approval is not mentioned because it is not required for the award of a service pistol to a retiring deputy. 1 Thomas v. State, 349 Ark. 447, 454, 79 S.W.3d 347, 351 (2002). 2 Searcy Farm Supply, LLC v. Merchants & Planters Bank, 369 Ark. 47, 492 256 S.W.3d 496, 501 (2007) (“[I]t is blackletter law for statutory construction to give effect to the specific statute over the general.”) (citation omitted). 3 Donoho v. Donoho, 318 Ark. 637, 639–40, 887 S.W.2d 290, 291 (1994) (“This court has also held that a general statute does not apply when there is a specific statute covering a particular subject matter.”) (citation omitted). 4 Locke v. Cook, 245 Ark. 787, 793, 434 S.W.2d 598, 601 (1968) (“A statute should be construed so that no word is void, superfluous, or insignificant[,] and meaning and effect must be given to every word contained therein, if possible.”) (citations omitted).

The Honorable Steve Unger
State Representative
Opinion No. 2025-083
Page 3
Deputy Attorney General Kelly Summerside prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve. Sincerely, TIM GRIFFIN Attorney General