Kansas considers making schools liable for not arming staff

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Alamo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Oct 4, 2010
    8,085
    113
    Texas
    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.

    ...

    Even if that provision [holding schools liable if they don't allow armed teachers] 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.

    ...

    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.
     

    OakRiver

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 12, 2014
    15,013
    77
    IN
    It makes a certain sense that if you prohibit people from effectively defending themselves and freely exercising their rights on your property that you are responsible for their safety while they are on your property.
     

    Tombs

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    12,021
    113
    Martinsville
    Any establishment should be liable for any harm that comes to anyone on their property if they do not allow people to protect themselves.

    I have no idea why this isn't already federal law. If I'm not allowed to carry a gun on your property, you **** well better be providing armed security for me for the duration of my time on that property, otherwise you should be charged as an accessory.
     

    Denny347

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    13,415
    149
    Napganistan
    Any establishment should be liable for any harm that comes to anyone on their property if they do not allow people to protect themselves.

    I have no idea why this isn't already federal law. If I'm not allowed to carry a gun on your property, you **** well better be providing armed security for me for the duration of my time on that property, otherwise you should be charged as an accessory.
    Soooo, you are saying that YOUR safety trumps THEIR property rights? Gotcha
     

    two70

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    19   0   0
    Feb 5, 2016
    3,724
    113
    Johnson
    Soooo, you are saying that YOUR safety trumps THEIR property rights? Gotcha

    Since when do property rights come without the strings of responsibility attached? Property owners have been held liable for injuries incurred by others on their property. It seems if we are going to hold property owners as liable for the injuries of the clumsy, unaware people that enter their property, then we should also hold those that actively decrease the safety of those entering their properties liable as well.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,116
    113
    Gtown-ish
    It makes a certain sense that if you prohibit people from effectively defending themselves and freely exercising their rights on your property that you are responsible for their safety while they are on your property.

    This is what I’ve always thought of gun free businesses/employers. You prohibit self preservation on your property you should be liable for that.
     

    Tombs

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    12,021
    113
    Martinsville
    Soooo, you are saying that YOUR safety trumps THEIR property rights? Gotcha

    I'm saying if they will not permit me to defend myself, they are responsible for my safety as they forced me to surrender my responsibility.

    This has nothing to do with property rights at all, and everything to do with responsibility.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,116
    113
    Gtown-ish
    I'm saying if they will not permit me to defend myself, they are responsible for my safety as they forced me to surrender my responsibility.

    This has nothing to do with property rights at all, and everything to do with responsibility.

    I generally agree but it could be argued that the firearm symbol with the red circle cross means, "No self-defense weapons allowed; enter at your own risk". I guess then we could complicate things with the "public accommodations" discussion.
     

    Thor

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jan 18, 2014
    10,704
    113
    Could be anywhere
    OP said school districts. Private Schools would be, well, private and voluntarily attended. I'm thinking 'come to our school where we won't defend your children' won't be a real selling point.
     

    Mr. Habib

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 4, 2009
    3,781
    149
    Somewhere else
    I'm saying if they will not permit me to defend myself, they are responsible for my safety as they forced me to surrender my responsibility.

    This has nothing to do with property rights at all, and everything to do with responsibility.

    It has everything to do with property rights. NO ONE forces you to enter someone's private property. If you choose to, you do so
    voluntarily and agreeing to abide by the rules set forth by the property owner. If you come onto my property and I ask you to
    disarm, you will disarm or you will leave. If I require you to wear Lederhosen and yodel Broadway show tunes while
    at my home you will or you will leave. My property, my rules. Don't like them, stay home it's really that simple.
     

    OutdoorDad

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Apr 19, 2015
    1,950
    63
    Indianapolis
    Help me understand this:
    The police have no obligation to put themselves at risk and intervene if someone is being murdered.
    In this scenario where teachers are armed, is there the assumption that a teacher WOULD have that obligation?
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,116
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Help me understand this:
    The police have no obligation to put themselves at risk and intervene if someone is being murdered.
    In this scenario where teachers are armed, is there the assumption that a teacher WOULD have that obligation?

    I wouldn't think it's an issue of HAVE to oblige. More about allowing them to. A teacher with a firearm has a better chance of defending him/herself against a shooter, and therefore also defending the kids.

    I see just a couple of issues this law raises. 1) If they allow teachers to be armed, then they bear the responsibility if the teacher does something stupid with it...negligent discharge, insecure storage, etc. 2) The property rights issue. If it's a public school, there's not a property rights issue. If it's a private school, then it's in that grey area where people disagree about whether private business owners in a public space have the right to prohibit people from arming themselves. In the case of a private business, do they assume liability if they prohibit firearms?
     
    Top Bottom