J. Tyler McCaughn

*1 Attorney General Jim Hood is in receipt of your request for an official opinion of this office and has assigned it to me for research and response:

*1 Your letter states:

*1 As your letter notes, the Housing Authority's firearms policy has been in place for years in the form of an employee handbook. As such, the policy constitutes a past act on which we cannot issue a formal opinion. We have repeatedly stated that opinions of this office cannot be used to either validate or invalidate past actions. Moreover, whether a firearms policy was properly promulgated and the effect of inclusion of such a purported policy in a handbook are matters that must be determined based on factual matters. See e.g., Lee v. Golden Triangle Planning & Dev. Dist., Inc., 797 So. 2d 845, 848 (Miss. 2001); Bobbitt v. Orchard, Ltd., 603 So. 2d 356, 361 (Miss. 1992). Because of the factual nature of your inquiry and the fact that it is based on prior acts, we are required to decline to issue a formal opinion on the specific facts stated in your letter. However, we understand your inquiry to generally be whether the Housing Authority can adopt policies preventing employees from possessing firearms on Housing Authority property. This office has opined that public employers may restrict the right of employees to possess weapons under the contract of employment. For example, this office opined:

*2 MS AG Op., Cantrell (Oct. 1, 2013). Additionally, we have opined that:

*2 MS AG Op., Pennington (Mar. 1, 2013). Thus, in response to your first question, it is the opinion of this office that the Housing Authority may restrict employees from possessing weapons on Housing Authority property if done pursuant to a duly adopted, lawful employment policy. Although our prior opinions applied to concealed carry with a permit, we believe the same rationale would apply to prohibiting open carry by employees.

*2 Your second question asks whether “any laws” prevail over the “policies” of the employee handbook. We have not reviewed the employee handbook nor the policies of the Housing Authority. Aside from relating to prior actions, this question is too broad and lacks the specificity needed with regard to either the subject laws or subject policies¹ for this office to respond. As a general matter, we believe this question to be directed at whether there is any law that authorizes an employee to carry a weapon at work even when the employer has adopted a policy prohibiting such possession. We are unaware of any such law.

*2 Your third question asks whether the Housing Authority can ban “all firearms ... regardless of the employee/visitor status[.]” This question is not limited to employees and presumably would apply to anyone on the property other than a tenant. Likewise, your request does not identify any specific place, nor does it differentiate between concealed carry or open carry. This question is too broad and the facts too undelineated for us to offer a dispositive opinion. The gun laws in Mississippi are complicated and complex and do not lend themselves to broad generalizations. Different issues arise depending on the type of carry, whether the individual is licensed and the nature of the place or places where carry rights are to be restricted. If, for example, a ban on open carry rights is proposed, the Housing Authority would be required to comply with federal constitutional requirements. See MS AG Op., Lance (June 13, 2013)(discussing sensitive places analysis under federal constitution). Accordingly, we must decline to respond to your question as written.

*2 However, we note that recent amendments to Mississippi Code Ann. Sec. 45-9-51 do appear to provide, or at least acknowledge, regulatory authority of housing authorities in the firearm arena. Section 45-9-51 together with Section 45-9-53 operate to limit the authority that counties and municipalities have to regulate the possession of firearms. The effect of these statutes is that a county or municipality can only regulate possession of firearms in those places listed in Section 45-9-53(1)(f).² Regional housing authorities are created by counties, and this office has opined that such authorities are political subdivisions, as opposed to state agencies. MS AG Op., Rhodes (May 5, 2006). Absent express reference to housing authorities, we would likely find that the provisions of Sections 45-9-51 and 45-9-53 applied to housing authorities as local political subdivisions. See MS AG Op., Cartlidge (Sept. 18, 2014)(analogizing a local rails-to-trails recreational district to a local political subdivision and applying provisions of Section 45-9-53).

*3 Section 45-9-51, however, was amended by House Bill No. 314 in the 2014 Regular Session. The language in paragraph (2) was specifically added regarding housing authorities as follows:

*3 If the broader prohibitions of Sections 45-9-51 and 45-9-53 were applicable to housing authorities, then paragraph (2) would have been unnecessary. Accordingly, we understand this restriction found in paragraph (2) to be a legislative acknowledgment of a general authority of housing authorities to promulgate rules and regulations relating to firearm possession on property controlled by such authorities. Thus, our opinion is that regional housing authorities have general authority to regulate firearm possession. However, this authority is not absolute and must be exercised consistent with federal constitutional requirements. Like regulations by other local political subdivisions, any regulations adopted cannot directly conflict with applicable state law.

*3 If our office can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.