TexasCHLforum.com

The opponents of this bill seem to be (expectedly) engaging in FUD by claiming it will force teachers to be armed.

It seems the real issue is that while the law provides school districts may, just as in Texas, allow teachers/staff to be armed, a private company (EMC) that is the main insurer for school districts in Kansas effectively negated the law by refusing to insure any district that did so. This gives an out to the many snowflake teacher and administrators and organizations that oppose teachers acting like adults, so no real pressure to find a new insurer.

That is indeed a big deal.

Proponents of at least allowing districts to decide have struck back, Trump-like, by going big. Requiring districts to allow armed teachers or face strict liability will force districts to find a new insurer, which will in turn force EMC to drop its ridiculous requirement or face losing the entire Kansas market.

I suspect the compromise that emerges in the end will be that the law will be changed to not allow insurers to refuse insurance based on school staff being armed.

Interesting:

Kansas law has allowed teachers to carry concealed guns since 2013 but school districts across the state have disallowed the practice after EMC Insurance Companies, the state's primary school insurer, refused to provide coverage to schools with armed staff.

Even if that provision is stripped, as some advocates suggested during the hearing, the bill would prohibit insurers from denying coverage to a school because it lets its teachers or staff members carry weapons.