Lynn Cartlidge

*1 Attorney General Jim Hood has received your request for an official opinion and assigned it to me for research and response.

*1 Your letter states that you are President of the Board of Directors of the Pearl & Leaf Rivers Rails-to-Trails Recreational District (the “District”). The District was formed pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. Section 55-25-1, et seq. Under the authorizing statutes, districts may be formed by one or more counties and one or more municipalities. Once formed, a district has the authority to publish rules and regulations pursuant to Section 55-25-6, and once adopted and published in accordance with that statute, the rules and regulations have the force and effect of general law and violations may be punished as a misdemeanor. Municipalities within a district are mandated to enforce a district's regulations within the municipality and may task their municipal police forces to assist in enforcement within the municipality and for a distance not to exceed five (5) miles outside of the municipality. Counties are authorized to levy a tax for support of a district. You note that the District has already passed a rule or regulation which states “firearms of any kind are prohibited on the trail except for authorized personnel, law enforcement officers or by permit.” You letter asks the following questions:

*1 Your letter asks only about restrictions on open carrying of firearms and for this reason, this opinion will not and does not address any authority the District may have to regulate concealed carry of weapons by either regular or enhanced carry permit holders granted such rights by Section 45-9-101 or Section 97-37-7(2). This office has previously opined that whether a public entity in this state may regulate the open carrying of weapons on public property “is a two-prong inquiry based first on state law authority and second on whether such a prohibition would violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.” MS AG Op Hyde-Smith (Oct. 23, 2013). In MS AG Op., Lance (June 13, 2013) we opined that

*2 The District's enabling statute does not make it a state agency, so we believe that it is a local government unit much like a county or municipality. The Legislature has both granted and limited the authority either a county or municipality has to regulate the possession of firearms on county or municipality property. With regard to both entities, the Legislature has granted authority to regulate the possession of firearms specifically in regard to a “public park.” Miss. Code Ann. Section 45-9-53(1)(f).² The District's enabling statutes grant it authority “to establish rules and regulations for the use of the recreational facilities of the district.” Miss. Code Ann. Section 55-25-5. It is the opinion of this office that such authority extends to regulations that require that use of the District's facilities be without possession of a firearm. We believe that the District's property is in the nature of a public park. Because municipalities and counties are authorized to regulate possession of weapons in public parks, we are of the opinion that this supports our conclusion that the District, as a local government entity, should be able under state law to regulate, at a minimum, the open carry of weapons on its property which is either, in fact, a public park or analogous to one.

*2 However, as we noted earlier, regulation of open carrying of weapons must be proper under federal constitutional provisions and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. As discussed in our Lance opinion, the regulation of open carry of firearms will be upheld where such areas are properly characterized as “sensitive areas.” Whether an area is a “sensitive area” is a determination that must made in the first instance by the agency or entity having control over the property. Such determinations must be made based on the facts with reference to federal law. Our office does not make these types of factual determinations, and we do not opine on matters of federal law. Both the Lance and Hyde-Smith opinions discuss factors that may be considered by a public body in reaching a conclusion regarding whether an area is a “sensitive area.” Accordingly, we refer you to those opinions for guidance in this matter. Furthermore, we previously opined that a public body making a determination that an area is a “sensitive area” should articulate the government interest served by the ban as well as its rationale supporting the reasonableness of the ban. Like our prior opinions, we suggest that any findings and determinations that the District make in this regard be included in the administrative record and/or minutes of any meeting approving or making such determinations.

*3 Thus, it is the opinion of this office that the District may regulate open carrying of weapons on the District's property under state law. However, such regulations must be consistent with federal constitutional principles which would require that the area in which a firearms ban is imposed be properly designated as a “sensitive area.” This office cannot make that determination on the District's behalf, and because such determinations must be made under federal law, we cannot provide an official opinion as to whether such a determination would be appropriate. We note that your letter states that a regulation is already in existence. This office only opines on prospective matters, and for this reason, this opinion may not be used to either validate or invalidate the previously promulgated rule or regulation.

*3 Your second question asks whether particular language and locations of signs is adequate to “serve the prohibition” in the regulation against open carrying of weapons. We understand your question to be whether the verbiage and locations of the signage is adequate to provide notice to patrons. This question is inherently a factual question on which this office cannot opine. We, instead, limit our opinions to matters of law. Moreover, the regulation and signage are already in place. For your information we do note that Section 55-25-6 provides for the notice to be given when the District passes a rule or regulation, and as we noted once passed such rules and regulations carry the force and effect of law. Generally speaking once a public body passes a regulation or law and complies with the notice provisions, no further notice or actual notice need be given as a prerequisite to enforcement thereof. Of course, the District would have to have complied with the notice provisions when such regulations were enacted, and such regulations should be maintained as a record of the District available for public inspection. These matters all involve past actions upon which we are unaware of the factual circumstances. Accordingly, we decline to opine whether the District followed proper notice procedures when it adopted its regulations.

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