Kevin Upchurch

*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 requests this office opinion on the following questions:

*1 Your letter cites to Miss. Code Ann. Section 29-5-2 for the purpose of identifying those buildings over which DFA has “general supervision and care.” This section identifies specific buildings by name. Additionally Section 29-5-2(a)(iv) gives DFA the right of general supervision and care over “any property purchased, constructed or otherwise acquired by the State of Mississippi for conducting state business” which is “not specifically under the supervision and care by any other state entity.” Your letter also cites to this office's opinion in MS AG Op. Lance (June 13, 2013) for the proposition that open carrying of weapons may be restricted by state and local governments under appropriate circumstances and conditions. On this discrete point, the Lance Opinion can be distilled to its essence to state that a state or local entity can regulate open carrying of weapons on property controlled by the entity if (1) authorized by state law and (2) the regulation meets federal constitutional muster.

*1 With regard to your first question, it is the opinion of this office that DFA has requisite state law authority over those properties specifically listed in Section 29-5-2(a). Additionally, DFA has similar authority over those properties identified generally in Section 29-5-2(a)(iv) to the extent that such properties are not under the “supervision and care” of another “state entity.” Whether a property not specifically identified is under the care of another state entity would potentially be a mixed question of law and fact on which this office cannot opine in a general manner without additional facts including the specific identity of the property.

*2 As this office noted in Lance, whether a particular restriction is reasonable and permissible under federal constitutional constraints is a matter that must be determined on a case-by-case analysis in the first instance by the agency implementing the regulation. Because this issue turns on federal law, this office cannot provide an official opinion as to the validity of any particular regulation or restriction on the open carrying of weapons in a particular location. Our opinion in Lance provides our analysis of the federal constitutional considerations which should be helpful in assisting DFA in making these determinations.

*2 Your second question asks whether DFA can impose a ban, “in consultation with the landlord” on property being leased by the State under the provisions of Miss. Code Ann. Section 29-5-2(c). This section sets forth the authority of DFA in part as follows:

*2 Miss. Code Ann. Section 29-5-2(c)(emphasis added). The wording of the statute seems to clearly contemplate that the leases under this section are for buildings “outside” the jurisdiction of DFA. It is the opinion of this office that absent some type of memorandum of understanding between DFA and the renting agency, such leased properties would be properties under the supervision and care of another state entity as contemplated in Section 29-5-2(a)(iv).¹ Of course it would still be possible for DFA to consult with the landlord and renting agencies regarding restrictions relating to open carrying of weapons.

*2 Your third question asks whether DFA can post signage similar to that authorized in Miss. Code Ann. Section 45-9-101(13). It should be noted that the signage specified in Section 45-9-101(13) relates specifically to prohibiting the concealed carry of weapons onto premises by a person holding a concealed carry permit. For this reason, simply posting the signage prescribed in Section 45-9-101(13) would not, in our opinion, presumptively establish notice to a person carrying a weapon openly, and the agency in any legal proceeding or challenge might be required to prove actual notice. Additionally, it is our opinion that providing notice other than by, or in conjunction with, signage would be appropriate. In the context of notice to concealed carry permit holders, the office has previously opined that notice can be provided by “by posting a sign ..., by giving verbal notice or through notice by other means.” MS AG Op. Cantrell (Oct. 1, 2013). We believe the same logic would apply to notice regarding open carrying of weapons. Of course, the ability of DFA to post signs is dependent on whether DFA has jurisdiction over the property in question.

*3 In summary, it is the opinion of this office that DFA can prohibit the open carrying of weapons on state property that is controlled by and under the jurisdiction of DFA. Any such restrictions would, of course, have to meet federal constitutional muster. DFA may post signage on properties controlled by it. Such signs could be similar to the signage referenced in Section 45-9-101(13) or different so long as the signs are sufficient to provide notice to people entering the property. Additionally, DFA could provide notice through verbal or other means. It is our opinion that DFA's power to approve an agency's lease of property, which would place the property under the agency's control, does not authorize DFA to determine whether weapons may be openly carried on such property.

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