The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday affirmed a lower court's decision that denied a petition by a Conway lawyer who was barred from taking a firearm into Little Rock City Hall, with one justice emphasizing in a concurring opinion that the decision isn't meant to be one that affects a license holder's ability to carry a weapon into municipal buildings.
Chris Corbitt, a concealed-carry license holder, sued the city of Little Rock, Mayor Frank Scott Jr. and City Manager Bruce Moore -- the city's policymakers -- last year, saying they had violated his constitutional rights by not recognizing Act 1024 of 2021 and barring him from taking his gun into City Hall.
Enacted by the General Assembly, Act 1024 is intended to open municipal buildings, with some exemptions, to enhanced-carry licensees.
Arkansas has two levels of concealed-carry licenses, basic and enhanced, based on training and live-fire testing. The law is intended to allow enhanced concealed-carry permit holders to take their guns into airports, the state Capitol, General Assembly meetings, state offices and public universities where the weapons had been prohibited.
Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chip Welch denied Corbitt's petition for a writ of mandamus to force the city into immediate compliance, saying the law is not clearly written and that he would need to hold a trial to hear more evidence and arguments before deciding whether Corbitt's rights had been violated.
Corbitt appealed the decision to the state Supreme Court, arguing that the circuit court erred in refusing to enforce certain statutes that, he claims, allow enhanced-concealed carry licensees to enter City Hall with a firearm.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Dan Kemp said in the opinion that a petition of writ of mandamus must show a clear and certain right to relief sought and the absence of any other adequate remedy.
"Because Corbitt has failed to make any argument for reversal on the 'other adequate remedy' finding, he cannot demonstrate that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying his mandamus petition," Kemp said. "Therefore, we affirm."
State Supreme Court Justice Shawn Womack agreed with the decision but said in a concurring opinion that he wanted to emphasize that the court's opinion only affirms the circuit court because of a procedural deficiency.
"Because that deficiency is fatal to the appeal, this court's majority opinion is neither considering nor opining on the merits of the Enhanced Concealed Carry License Statute or the City of Little Rock's policy related thereto," he said.
Womack said the General Assembly allowed enhanced concealed carry license holders to carry concealed handguns into municipal buildings but the city of Little Rock ignored the clearly established right and implemented a policy that appears to violate state law.
"Arkansans should not have to wait for this court to decide when their clearly established rights vest," he said.
Womack said cities are creatures of statute.
"Rather than originating from the state constitution with defined rights, powers, and duties, cities are created by the power of the legislature and are subject to its controls, limitations, and policies," he said.
Corbitt filed suit Aug. 9, 2021, for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and a writ of mandamus in Pulaski County Circuit Court. He argued Act 1024 of 2021 "affords holders of an Enhanced Concealed Carry License the right to carry a concealed weapon in municipal buildings."
Several weeks later, Corbitt filed a petition for writ of mandamus "seeking to enforce the laws that allow Enhanced Concealed Carry Licensees to enter the municipal City Hall building in Little Rock, Arkansas."
City officials disputed the legality of Act 1024, with City Attorney Tom Carpenter stating on Sept. 3, 2021, that it violates the constitution by discriminating between public-property owners like the city and private-property owners who can bar gun-holders from their land.
The city filed a motion to dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus, arguing that mandamus was premature because multiple issues remained to be litigated.
The circuit court denied the petition 10 days later, stating there was no showing of "a clear and certain right to the relief sought" as to the issue of mandamus only.
"Plaintiff is not seeking Preliminary Injunctive Relief, and this fact, coupled with his remaining multiple pending remedies to be addressed at trial in the future, illustrates there is no showing of the absence of any other adequate remedy," circuit court documents stated.
Kemp said the standard review is whether the circuit court abused its discretion in granting or denying a petition for writ of mandamus.
"A circuit court abuses its discretion when it makes a decision that is arbitrary or capricious," he said in court documents. "This court has held that when a circuit court's decision is based on more than one independent ground, and an appellant challenges only one of those grounds on appeal, the appellate court will affirm without addressing any of those grounds."
Corbitt argued in his appeal to the Supreme Court only that a plain reading of certain statues makes clear and certain the right of enhanced concealed carry licenses to carry a firearm in Little Rock's City Hall. He did not challenge the circuit court's finding regarding absence of any other adequate remedy.
Carpenter said in a emailed statement Thursday to Little Rock's mayor and city board that for now the city is free to follow state law on concealed weapons, place signage in appropriate places and refuse entry to anyone with a firearm.