Opencarry in Arkansas
- Thread starter bucksnort
- Start date
Kirk A. Headrick
Arkansas Hog Fan
At this point in time it is still up in the air. There are county prosecutors (Washington county for example) that have read the law and will allow OC but cities inside that county will not.
We will have to just wait and see if the Arkansas AG will step down from his high horse and make the right choice.
We will have to just wait and see if the Arkansas AG will step down from his high horse and make the right choice.
endorphine44
New member
check out arkansascarry.com and Patriots of Act 746 on Facebook for more details, but yes you can open carry in Arkansas. Many of the prosecuting attorneys have made public statements that they will not prosecute for open carry. I've been carrying around Conway for a couple of weeks with no issue. Many others carrying around Hot Springs, Benton, north west Arkansas, etc.
I just completed my chl class here in Arkansas. My instructor said that open carry is still a touchy subject for the time being. He was a former cop so I trust his judgment. My sister is also up to date on the laws here in Arkansas and says till it is fully approved to open carry that it can be left up to the officer that responds to the call on some one OC in the state. I have yet to see any one OC in Washington County.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using USA Carry mobile app
Sent from my SCH-I545 using USA Carry mobile app
Thank you for passing on the information you received from a CHL class instructor and a former cop - which are two out of the three groups of people that have repeatedly proven themselves to be the biggest sources of misinformation regarding firearms laws, especially regarding open carry. Your sister doesn't happen to work in a gun shop does she? That would complete the triad of the three largest sources of firearms law misinformation.
r1derbike
New member
No OC for me until case law and precedent are set. The act is too vague (even if correct to enable OC) to risk a brush with law enforcement who are ignorant of its meaning, right or wrong.
When and if the Act sports specific language that authorizes Open Carry here in Arkansas, I'll be happy to hip-my-hardware.
I've never been arrested, and certainly won't test the waters based on what I've heard statewide so far. YMMV.
When and if the Act sports specific language that authorizes Open Carry here in Arkansas, I'll be happy to hip-my-hardware.
I've never been arrested, and certainly won't test the waters based on what I've heard statewide so far. YMMV.
You will never see that happen. 99% of laws define what is illegal - not legal. If there is no law prohibiting a certain act, then that act is legal. So the question is not what law allows me to do this...the question is what law prohibits it to make it illegal?
Act 746 is extremely poorly written, there is no doubt about that.
endorphine44
New member
NavyLCDR, I have to disagree with your last statement. Act 746 was not poorly written, it is quite clear in it's language and intent. It is not against the law to possess a weapon in Arkansas unless you're intent is to commit a crime. I don't know how that could be any more clearly stated.
We also have this from Rep Denny Altes who helped draft and pass Act 746:
We also have this from Rep Denny Altes who helped draft and pass Act 746:
Here is a link from a U of A law professor saying that we screwed up in the legislature with the Open Carry bill...
Open Carry in Arkansas?An Ambiguous Statute | Arkansas Law Notes
We did not screw up.
Open Carry has always been the law in Arkansas since at least the 1800s. When most people walked out their front door, they assumed they were on a “journey” or going hunting, and thousands open carried for over a century. “Journey” was not defined.
It was against the law to conceal a weapon or gun. So, for well over
a hundred years you had to open carry. If you put your gun in your glove box or under your seat, or under your clothes you were breaking the law. You had to carry your gun so that it was plainly visible on your body or on the seat of your car or on the dash (According
to A.C.A. § 5-73-120).
Then, in 1997, Senator Bill Walters past the Concealed Carry law (Ark. Code
Ann. §§ 5-73-301 – 323), which is a totally different section of code addressing a different issue.
In 2011, I had heard many different discussions on carrying in Arkansas,
and I wanted to clarify the law, especially Section 120. I asked the State Police lawyer to help me. We spent a lot of time coming up with a bill to please everyone. The people teaching classes for Concealed Carry didn’t
want the law clarified because it would cut into their livelihood and also the State Police would take a revenue cut on the money from people buying licenses. So, in the end, my bill passed the House but failed in the
Senate at the end of the session.
In 2013, I started earlier with the same bill, but the State Police had
changed their mind on a few things. So, we wound-up
with a totally different bill. Also, the University
System wanted
me to exclude their campuses.
We had several meetings with the Sherriff’s Association, the Chiefs
of Police Association, the Prosecutors’ Association,
and the State Police. The old code was written so
there were many defenses to carrying a weapon. So, I asked why not make it a right with exceptions. This met with approval from everyone. It seems that it is two sides of the same coin.
So, we didn’t really change the law, we only clarified that
it is a right to keep and bear arms according to the Second
Amendment of our Constitution (According to Webster’s
“bear” means “to carry”).
Open Carry in Arkansas?An Ambiguous Statute | Arkansas Law Notes
We did not screw up.
Open Carry has always been the law in Arkansas since at least the 1800s. When most people walked out their front door, they assumed they were on a “journey” or going hunting, and thousands open carried for over a century. “Journey” was not defined.
It was against the law to conceal a weapon or gun. So, for well over
a hundred years you had to open carry. If you put your gun in your glove box or under your seat, or under your clothes you were breaking the law. You had to carry your gun so that it was plainly visible on your body or on the seat of your car or on the dash (According
to A.C.A. § 5-73-120).
Then, in 1997, Senator Bill Walters past the Concealed Carry law (Ark. Code
Ann. §§ 5-73-301 – 323), which is a totally different section of code addressing a different issue.
In 2011, I had heard many different discussions on carrying in Arkansas,
and I wanted to clarify the law, especially Section 120. I asked the State Police lawyer to help me. We spent a lot of time coming up with a bill to please everyone. The people teaching classes for Concealed Carry didn’t
want the law clarified because it would cut into their livelihood and also the State Police would take a revenue cut on the money from people buying licenses. So, in the end, my bill passed the House but failed in the
Senate at the end of the session.
In 2013, I started earlier with the same bill, but the State Police had
changed their mind on a few things. So, we wound-up
with a totally different bill. Also, the University
System wanted
me to exclude their campuses.
We had several meetings with the Sherriff’s Association, the Chiefs
of Police Association, the Prosecutors’ Association,
and the State Police. The old code was written so
there were many defenses to carrying a weapon. So, I asked why not make it a right with exceptions. This met with approval from everyone. It seems that it is two sides of the same coin.
So, we didn’t really change the law, we only clarified that
it is a right to keep and bear arms according to the Second
Amendment of our Constitution (According to Webster’s
“bear” means “to carry”).
Allow me to explain why I feel Act 746 is poorly written.
Arkansas Statute (revised by ACT 746):
Link Removed
Title 5, Subtitle 6, Chapter 73, Subchapter 1:
OK. So far I have no issues. Pretty darn plain and clear. BUT THEN we get:
Followed by 10 different conditions in the law where it is permissible to carry a handgun. And guess what condition is left out of that list? I am Joe Civilian openly carrying a handgun between my house and the Safeway store two blocks away from my house. It is poorly written because if it is just plain not illegal to open carry a handgun with no intent to commit a crime, then why in the world is there the list of the 10 different conditions that further define when it is permissible to carry a handgun? Why define in the 10 specific terms what is legal, if it is just plain legal under the previous paragraph to begin with? And why leave out just plain walking down the public street?
And here's another question - now what Arkansas law makes it illegal to conceal the handgun without a license?
You want a simple law that is less vague?
Look at Washington's:
One sentence to say, allegedly, the same thing as Arkansas' whole page of attempting to explain what is allowed. Then, further on in the RCW is a list of exceptions to the requirement to have the CPL to conceal a pistol, and a short list of prohibited places.
"The old code was written so
there were many defenses to carrying a weapon. So, I asked why not make it a right with exceptions."
Sorry but IMHO when you allow the legislature to create exceptions to a right, you in effect have turned a right into a privilege. I agree with NavyLCDR that this is a very poorly written bill. The only true remedy is to eliminate any and all bills that infringe on the right to carry. You don't make rights. Rights are self inherent.
there were many defenses to carrying a weapon. So, I asked why not make it a right with exceptions."
Sorry but IMHO when you allow the legislature to create exceptions to a right, you in effect have turned a right into a privilege. I agree with NavyLCDR that this is a very poorly written bill. The only true remedy is to eliminate any and all bills that infringe on the right to carry. You don't make rights. Rights are self inherent.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
I sincerely hope that you and Rep. Altes are correct that there were no screw-ups in the language, but after reading the good professor's treatise, I have to say that you may well be in trouble in the courts with the "legislative intent" analysis. Considering that your legislature previously rejected an attempt to make OC fully legal without touching the CC law, and that this most current law "might" make CC without a permit at all just as "legal" as OC without a permit through a bit of verbal gymnastics about the word "journey," I think the professor's recounting of your state's judicial history regarding legislative intent cases may be your downfall. I'm not hoping that happens, just saying that if the professor's history lesson is accurate, it ain't a slam-dunk for your side.
On the other side of that coin, I don't know who or what entity might have standing to sue for court relief. Seems to me that unless someone can be shown to have their rights harmed by people who carry weapons during their "journeys" (open or concealed apparently), then there's no case to be considered by the courts. Surely your state Supreme Court wouldn't take a case brought by legislators who claim they didn't understand the word "journey" well enough to fully comprehend what they were voting for, would they?
To the extent that some brain-dead legislators may exist who would put forth such a court case, if it's rejected from the courts, it certainly could still be pushed as a repeal or clarification proposal from the Floors of your legislature.
In any case, it doesn't seem quite as cut-and-dried as you and Rep. Altes make it sound. Though the professor does seem rather hostile to the premise of OC, it doesn't make his entire analysis of the law, history or the considerations courts will have to consider, invalid.
Blues
Actually, "journey" is defined in part B of the same statute (I just did not quote part B):
endorphine44
New member
The AG is a political hack, most of the states prosecuting attorneys have openly disagreed with his opinion hence all of the open carry walks around the state. The AG will continue to oppose it as long as gov Beebe tells him to.
Here is what is humorous about the AG's "opinion". It sounds like he is saying it is only legal to carry a handgun if one of the conditions of section (c) are met, meaning that only the conditions of section (c) are "exceptions" to some prohibition that is in section (a). Well, the only prohibition that I see in section (a) is, "with a purpose to attempt to unlawfully employ the handgun, knife, or club as a weapon against a person." So, if we follow the logic that the AG is attempting to use, that section (c) provides for the only exceptions to section (a) - then that means that, for one "exception", as long as I am "on a journey" then it becomes perfectly legal for me to have "a purpose to attempt to unlawfully employ the handgun, knife, or club as a weapon against a person!" You can't have it both ways, Mr. McDaniel!
BluesStringer
Les Brers
As to the piece by the professor that you posted though, can the AG or Governor (or any other party) get it into court? Because the piece seems to draw a valid conclusion that courts will look at legislative intent, and your legislature's intent was not to create a Constitutional carry environment (carry open or concealed without needing a permit).
On the other hand, re-reading the bit you posted from Rep. Altes, he does say this about the OC bill that was rejected in 2011:
So I don't know upon re-reading that. Maybe Altes did intend to create a Constitutional carry environment. If so, the professor is full of crap. If not, he may still be full of crap, but if he makes it to court and gets some legislators to admit that they were stupid to understand what they were voting for, legislative intent may still win the day and your current bill could be sent back to the legislature for "repairs."
I'm just curious, but did you read the piece that Altes linked and responded to?
Blues
Rocketgeezer
New member
Our CCW instructor was a long time sheriffs deputy, did firearm instruction to several police agencys in our area, him and another deputy put on a excellent class, it was mostly geared to none gun people, but that was no big deal, and in our state the permit is a (handgun carry permit) by law that's open or concealed, but he did say its best to conceal it, after a few years and a couple dozen holsters, I thought screw this, took one of the IWB holsters put it OWB and have been open carry since, I get looks, I'v been followed by cops when on my motorcycle, but I do feel a lot more comfortable, shirt tucked in, not look like a slob, trying to hide a plainly visable gun under a t-shirt,.........so I guess I just have a simple question, do's your permit say concealed only or just handgun carry?
My license says Concealed Pistol License. Because in Washington the license is only required to conceal the pistol. Open carry without the license is perfectly legal. I don't need a license to carry, just to conceal.
The Arkansas law says this, "has a valid license to carry a concealed handgun under § 5-73-301 et seq."
But I can't find anything in the new Arkansas law that requires a person to have the license in order to conceal the handgun.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
This is what I've been trying to get endorphine44 to address as regards the legislative intent of the new law as-analyzed by the professor that Rep. Altes responded to in Post #8 above in this link:
Open Carry in Arkansas?An Ambiguous Statute | Arkansas Law Notes
I agree with you that the new law doesn't require a permission slip for CC or OC, but I think the professor makes a good case that it was counter to what the legislature intended and, therefore, is vulnerable to attack through the courts.
Having said that, in order for the professor to prove his thesis, a substantial group of legislators who actually voted for the bill would have to show up in court and admit that they were all stupid enough to have no clue how adding the word "unlawful" to the "journey" part of the statute would change the entire meaning of the clause(s).
As far as I can tell, Arkansas is technically a Constitutional carry state for the time being. Since as far as I can also tell, the legislature did not intend for the addition of the word "unlawful" to accomplish that legal axiom, nor has law enforcement accepted that interpretation of the new law, I think it's also true that it will be modified or overturned by the legislature or courts respectively. Or at least that potential exists I guess I should say.
Blues
The courts can't overturn it simply because the law allows something the legislature had no intention of allowing. It works just the opposite. Let's say that I, a resident of Washington, visits Arkansas. I look up the laws of Arkansas and I read it and say to myself, "Well.....would you look at that! There is nothing prohibiting me from concealing my handgun without a license!" I get arrested, somehow, for concealing a handgun without a license. The courts are not supposed to tell me, "Well....even though there technically is no longer any law that you violated, we are going to convict you anyway because the legislature did not intend to make concealing a handgun without a license legal."
If the courts end up saying the new law allows for concealed carry without a license (which the law clearly does, whether the AG wants to admit it or not), the court does not have the authority to just overturn the law because it is not violating any rights of anyone or the state or US Constitution. The legislature can see the courts interpretation is different than their legislative intent and amend the law in such a way that the courts can interpret it the way they want them to.
New Threads
-
-
Mystic Seaport Museum, Shelburne Museum Vermont
- Started by Harry45255
- Replies: 0
-
-
Reloading Newbie Here—What’s the Real Cost Advantage?
- Started by michaelstrahan
- Replies: 4
-
Members online
No members online now.