TexasCHLforum.com

Kansas considers making schools liable for not arming staff

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas schools that refuse to allow teachers to carry guns could be held legally responsible in the event of a tragedy under a proposal drafted after last month's mass shooting at a Florida high school.

Opponents of the measure, which got its first hearing Tuesday in front of the House Insurance Committee, expressed concern it could effectively mandate arming teachers rather than allowing it, as several states have done.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/k ... 3611a.html

Isn't this somewhat like making a store liable if they post a 30.06 and you are injured by a BG while you are unarmed in the store? Perhaps a precedence setter for Texas.

rotor wrote:Isn't this somewhat like making a store liable if they post a 30.06 and you are injured by a BG while you are unarmed in the store? Perhaps a precedence setter for Texas.

I actually like that idea... with schools and businesses.. sure its a store owners right to have up 30.06 signs but its also my right to protect myself... i like that they would be liable for any shootings that happen. i imagine a LOT of 30.06 signs would be flying off the walls!

rotor wrote:Isn't this somewhat like making a store liable if they post a 30.06 and you are injured by a BG while you are unarmed in the store? Perhaps a precedence setter for Texas.

Similar concept. One key difference is that you are not legally required to buy things at stores or otherwise, but you are legally obligated to educate your kids (although you could home school). I think a key here is that the government is forcing parents to send their kids to school and then intentionally failing to safeguard them. That's a pretty powerful message to the average voter, IMHO.

This could all be accomplished another way. Just repeal the (likely unconstitutional) GFSZA, and then states can remove schools as places that are off limits to carry. Couple this with protections for government employees who are fired or disciplined for legally carrying concealed handguns in their places of employment. Voila! Every teacher who has an LTC and wants to carry can do so without fear of legal or disciplinary issues. It takes the school administrators completely out of the decision making process.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

rotor wrote:Isn't this somewhat like making a store liable if they post a 30.06 and you are injured by a BG while you are unarmed in the store? Perhaps a precedence setter for Texas.

Similar concept. One key difference is that you are not legally required to buy things at stores or otherwise, but you are legally obligated to educate your kids (although you could home school). I think a key here is that the government is forcing parents to send their kids to school and then intentionally failing to safeguard them. That's a pretty powerful message to the average voter, IMHO.

This could all be accomplished another way. Just repeal the (likely unconstitutional) GFSZA, and then states can remove schools as places that are off limits to carry. Couple this with protections for government employees who are fired or disciplined for legally carrying concealed handguns in their places of employment. Voila! Every teacher who has an LTC and wants to carry can do so without fear of legal or disciplinary issues. It takes the school administrators completely out of the decision making process.

my girlfriend works for a school that doesn't allow their staff to carry which really bothers me. any time i go to visit her i tell her to meet me in the parking lot because i refuse to disarm just to go into a school (where guns in the hands of good guys are needed the most)

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.

rotor wrote:Isn't this somewhat like making a store liable if they post a 30.06 and you are injured by a BG while you are unarmed in the store? Perhaps a precedence setter for Texas.

Good idea, but it won't work. State law requires kids to go to school, so imposing strict liability on schools is warranted. No one is required by law to enter any business establishment.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

rotor wrote:Isn't this somewhat like making a store liable if they post a 30.06 and you are injured by a BG while you are unarmed in the store? Perhaps a precedence setter for Texas.

Good idea, but it won't work. State law requires kids to go to school, so imposing strict liability on schools is warranted. No one is required by law to enter any business establishment.

Chas.

I don't know! I feel legally obligated to take my grand kids to Baskin-Robbins when I see them. I always need a double scoop of Chocolate Almond myself as well.

Well, you're legally obligated to appear for jury duty but I guarantee they won't let you carry on the court house lol. Granted there are armed police officers there..

Grundy1133 wrote:Well, you're legally obligated to appear for jury duty but I guarantee they won't let you carry on the court house lol. Granted there are armed police officers there..

If you are ill and need to go to the hospital you had better disarm. There is only one hospital in La Grange. It is posted. If I get killed by a crazed democrat while in the hospital can My widow sue? I couldn’t go anywhere else! I have no other option but to not go and die anyway. This insistence that places that post and deny our right to self defense can’t be held liable is nothing more than a fallacious argument.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

rotor wrote:Isn't this somewhat like making a store liable if they post a 30.06 and you are injured by a BG while you are unarmed in the store? Perhaps a precedence setter for Texas.

Good idea, but it won't work. State law requires kids to go to school, so imposing strict liability on schools is warranted. No one is required by law to enter any business establishment. .

Nobody is required to work as a teacher either.

However, as a property owner, I'm required to pay ISD taxes. If the ISD doesn't allow me to carry, they should have strict liability. Even better, if they prohibit a LTC who pays property taxes from carrying, the ISD should lose taxing authority for ten years. Not just for that person, but for everybody. Ten years. Minimum.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

rotor wrote:Isn't this somewhat like making a store liable if they post a 30.06 and you are injured by a BG while you are unarmed in the store? Perhaps a precedence setter for Texas.

Good idea, but it won't work. State law requires kids to go to school, so imposing strict liability on schools is warranted. No one is required by law to enter any business establishment.

Chas.

Charles, you are assuming this just involves students. What if a teacher is killed because he/she was not armed? Or a janitor or food service person, or whatever? These people are not by state law required to attend. They are employees. So, and I have not looked at the proposed law, does this open the liability of an institution (or business) to liability by making it a GFZ?

Kansas Bill Holds Schools Liable For Shootings If They Don't Let Teachers Carry Guns
https://www.dailywire.com/news/28810/ka ... n-saavedra

Kansas Legislation Proposes Making Schools Liable If They Won't Allow Armed Teachers
https://www.dailywire.com/news/28795/ka ... ssion=true

Teachers were armed at my kids' HomeSchool

This legislation would not "require" teachers,or other school employees, to carry. It would just hold liable, the governing body, which I understand is the taxpayers, if they refuse to allow carry, on their campuses. As Charles stated, since law requires, students to attend class, then the school board(s) have an obligation to make those classes as safe as possible.

I als agree that since we are required by law to appear for jury duty, lawful carry should be allowed there as well. Hopefully, with the legislation Charles is helping to write, for the next legislative session, we could see both of these changes made here in Texas

The problem in the court of public opinion is that the majority of people are ignorant about most everything in life, including guns. They are like the Barbie doll that said "math is hard", only in this case its more like "thinking is hard". So they don't think. They just look at this and most every other issue on an infantile level. Guns go bang. People die after they go bang. Guns are dangerous. So therefore more guns will mean more people die. Infantile. Ignorant. But they don't have time to really think. They need to get back to that dancing cat video someone just posted on Facebook.

So we are faced with the challenge of explaining that more guns in this particular situation will make kids more safe, not less. Unfortunately, it is hard to reason with those who refuse to actually think.