Can a public school district adopt a policy that overrides Act 1078 of 2015 and bars concealed-carry licensees from leaving handguns locked in cars at the school?

Plain-English summary

State Representative Michelle Gray (the lead House sponsor of Act 1078 of 2015) asked whether a public school district could adopt a policy that overrode Act 1078 and barred concealed-carry licensees from leaving handguns in locked cars in school parking lots. She had been told some districts were trying to do exactly that.

Attorney General Leslie Rutledge issued a short opinion enclosing her Opinion 2015-099, released the same day to Representative Karilyn Brown on the school-employee version of the same question. The conclusion: Act 1078 and the statutes it amended allow a person with a concealed-carry license to leave a concealed handgun in a locked unattended car in a designated school parking lot, and a school, school board, or superintendent cannot bar that conduct by members of the general public who are otherwise properly on school grounds. The AG declined to opine definitively about employees because that turns on the specific personnel policy at issue.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2016. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

What the opinion held by reference

This opinion is procedurally short. The AG explicitly directed the reader to Opinion 2015-099 for the full analysis. The key points from the referenced opinion as relevant to Gray's question were:

• The criminal statute that bars firearms on school property (Ark. Code Ann. § 5-73-119) was amended by Act 1078 to add an exception for concealed-carry licensees leaving handguns in locked unattended cars in publicly owned and maintained parking lots, including school parking lots.
• The concealed-carry licensing law (Ark. Code Ann. § 5-73-306) was simultaneously amended. Even though the parking-lot exception in (14)(B)(iv) omitted the word "school," the AG read the two statutes together to make the exception coextensive, since reading them otherwise would produce the absurd result of decriminalizing the conduct under the criminal statute while subjecting the licensee to license revocation.
• A school district policy that attempted to override Act 1078 for parents or other members of the public lawfully on school grounds would be "contrary to law and unenforceable" because Arkansas law does not let school boards adopt policies inconsistent with state statutes.
• The opinion left open whether a board could enforce such a restriction against district employees through properly adopted personnel policies, because the request did not include a specific policy to evaluate.

Why the cross-reference matters

The AG handled both Brown's request (employee version) and Gray's request (general policy version) the same day. The shared opinion makes clear that the rules for public visitors and the rules for employees are different. Districts cannot use general-public-facing policies to override Act 1078, but the employee context involves a separate set of authorities (board policy-making power under Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-205) that the AG was not able to evaluate without a specific policy in front of her.

The opinion also functioned as guidance to the legislator who had sponsored the law: she had been right that the statute had broader effect than some districts were acknowledging, but she would still need to work on legislative clarification (which the AG repeatedly urged in 2015-099) for the question to be fully resolved.

Common questions

What about districts that simply post "no firearms" signs in their parking lots?
The AG addressed that in Opinion 2015-099. Act 1078 specifically barred posting "no concealed carry" signs to override the parking-lot exception. A school district cannot use a sign to circumvent the statute either.

Could a district enforce a policy by ordering a specific person off the grounds?
Probably, on a case-by-case basis. The AG noted schools retain the power to exclude particular persons or vehicles that lack a legitimate reason to be on school property, and to prosecute trespass under Ark. Code Ann. § 6-21-606. What a school cannot do is adopt a blanket policy that contradicts Act 1078 for members of the public who are otherwise properly there.

Why is the employee question harder?
Because a school board has independent statutory authority to set personnel policies under Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-205. Those policies become terms of teacher contracts. Whether a properly adopted personnel policy restricting an employee from leaving a firearm in a vehicle in a school parking lot would be enforceable required a specific policy and a specific factual context the AG did not have.

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2015-120
January 21, 2016
STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
The Honorable Michelle Gray
State Representative
58 Gray Manor Lane
Melbourne, AR 72556
Dear Representative Gray:
You have requested my opinion on Act 1078 of 2015, which amended several statutes that address the carrying of firearms. As background for your questions, you state:

Act 1078 of 2015 amended several sections of the Arkansas Code in Title 5 concerning the possession of a concealed handgun by a concealed handgun licensee. One particular section amended was [section] 5-73-119(e), a statute concerning in part the possession of a firearm on school property, which permitted a concealed handgun licensee to possess a concealed handgun "in his or her motor vehicle" or "in his or her locked and unattended motor vehicle in a publicly owned and maintained parking lot." "Parking lot" was specifically defined by this act as "a designated area or structure or part of a structure intended for the parking of motor vehicles or a designate drop-off zone for children at a school."

You further state that it was your intent, as the primary sponsor of Act 1078 in the House of Representatives, "to make Act 1078 applicable to all public school districts," but that "some public school districts have attempted to abridge Act 1078 by stating that the public school board's policy does not permit the carrying of a concealed handgun on school premises, even by a licensee who is carrying a concealed handgun within the parameters permitted by Act 1078."

With this background in mind, you ask:

Question 1: May a public school district unilaterally create a policy that validly abridges or in any way validly circumvents the plain language and intent of Act 1078?
Question 2: If so, what is that specific legal basis?

RESPONSE

Please note that I have enclosed a copy of Attorney General Opinion 2015-099, which was recently issued in response to the similar question whether it is permissible for a school employee who has a concealed-carry license to leave the concealed handgun in his or her locked vehicle in a school district parking lot, even over the objections of the school superintendent. I opined therein that Act 1078 and the statutes amended by the Act allow a person with a concealed-carry license to leave his concealed handgun in a locked and unattended car in a designated parking lot of a public school. I also opined that Act 1078 and the statutes amended by the Act prevent a school, a school board, or a superintendent from prohibiting this conduct by a member of the general public, including parents of school attendees, who are otherwise properly on school grounds. I was unable to definitively opine, however, on the question as it relates to school employees.

I will not restate the substance of that opinion, but instead refer you to the enclosure for the analysis.

Sincerely,
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General

Enclosure: Opinion No. 2015-099