Thanks for all the ideas. I appreciate what has turned into something of a brainstorm session for me.
I've pretty much decided to explore all of the on-body carry options first, as I just don't like the idea of off-body carry. If I had a secure place to lock my firearm while I was away from my cube periodically, I may think differently.
I'm going to look into the Smartcarry and pocket carry options first. I also may explore the tuckable holster option and just deal with the "touchers" as they happen.
I may adopt a routine similar to what Zundfolge suggested.
I'll think on it a little longer, then make a decision. It may be a month or so, but I'll post back here and let you know how it works out. . .
Majic,
The existing rule (which forbade employees from carrying a firearm) was replaced with a new rule that didn't even mention firearms (no longer forbade them). The attorney general's office provided the impetus behind the rule change when they gave a legal opinion stating that it was a direct contradiction of the concealed carry law to forbid state employees from carrying a firearm legally.
Here is some of the text from the opinion:
Subsection (2) of that statute declares, "[a]ll authority to regulate firearms shall be reserved to the state except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility to local authorities or state entities. Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact or enforce any ordinance, regulation, or rule pertaining to firearms."
The Legislature has provided that the Department of Human Resource Management "shall establish a career service system" that provides for "recruiting, selecting, and advancing employees . . . equitable and competitive compensation . . . training employees as needed to assure high-quality performance . . . [and] retaining employees on the basis of the adequacy of their performance." § 67-19-3.1. Since the Legislature has not specifically delegated the authority to enact or enforce ordinances, regulations or rules pertaining to firearms to the Department of Human Resource Management, the only issue is whether R477-9-1(5) pertains to firearms. By its own terms it does. Consequently, the rule is not only unenforceable, it is also null and void because it has been promulgated in direct contravention of a statutory provision forbidding such a rule. It is my understanding that based on a similar informal opinion provided to the Governor's Office on October 22, 2001, DHRM is currently in the process of rescinding the rule by January 1, 2002.
The rule mentioned above (R477-9-1(5)) was the DHRM rule that prohibited employees from carrying firearms.
Shake