CA’s Kern High School District Requires $1Million Insurance for Campus Carry

Kern High School District (courtesy commander.kernhigh.com)

Gun control advocates want the government to force armed Americans to carry liability insurance. Just as Americans currently do when exercising their right to free speech, assembly and religion. [/sarc] As Admiral Akbar would say “It’s a trap!” Those in favor of civilian disarmament want to do everything they can to make gun ownership burdensome. Mandatory insurance would do just that, especially for people of limited financial means. And now, it’s here!

Starting today applications at the Kern [California] High School Police Department are available for non-school employees with a carrying a concealed weapon permit who wish to carry their weapon on campus.

A 17 News viewer contacted our station curious about the new CCW permit for the Kern High School District. He says that in order to get the permit, the application requires the applicant to provide proof of liability insurance of at least $1 million.

Our news team reached out to Kern High School District who says the $1 million liability coverage is a requirement of the policy.

Because…guns! And government tyranny. Like this:

This school year, parents, or any non-employee with a permit to carry a concealed weapon could be allowed to carry guns on campuses in the Kern High School District, if the district approves them.

Under the policy, Superintendent Bryon Schaefer will receive the CCW applications, but the school district has not said how they will decide who will be allowed to carry guns on campuses.

The school board is expected to address whether school staff could be permitted to carry concealed weapons on Sept. 6.

Kern High School District residents who wish to exercise their gun rights on school grounds — during a “target rich” school event or entering the 1000-yard exclusion zone established by Bush the Elder’s Gun Free School Zones Act to retrieve their child — will have to be vetted by the Kern County Sheriff’s Department and the Kern County School District Police Department. Whose requirements have yet to be decided or released to the public.

I mark that one step forward, two steps back. And a dangerous precedent that penalizes the poor.

comments

  1. avatar Grant in IN says:

    “Kern High School Police Department”

    Wat

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      I’m picturing three useless mallcop chics on Segways.

      1. avatar George says:

        No segways, but they do have AR-15’s!!

    2. avatar Lance Manion says:

      We used to call them Hall Monitors. Nerds with authority.

      1. avatar Kevin in CO says:

        Go, Cartman!

    3. avatar Katy says:

      If it’s a small district, school-wise, wouldn’t surprise me. We have a school district police department.

      Of course, they have jurisdiction everything within district boundaries, but the sheriff can’t do much of anything on school property.

      1. avatar George says:

        Pretty sure you are wrong here. The KHSD police has officers that are State “approved”. Their police powers are good anywhere in California. The Sheriff also have police powers anywhere in the state, which includes school district property. This district has over 3,500 employees and nearly 40,000 students. It is by no means a small District. All the officers were police officers in other agencies before working at the District.

  2. avatar Dave says:

    Must pay for a one million dollar policy to exercise second amendment rights, but requiring a (free) ID is an intolerable infringement on voting rights?

    Some rights are more equal than others.
    (To paraphrase Orwell’s Animal Farm).

    1. avatar George says:

      Not only that, but they will be subject to their personal information being given to the public via public records requests…

  3. avatar Joe says:

    I’ve never heard of a high school with it’s own police department.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Haven’t researched this one but it’s likely a contracted for sub station from the local sheriff’s dept. CA has some pretty massive high schools. Where I live we have a high school with 6000 students and a pretty large on site security unit.

      In my immediate area I’m aware of at least one student who was killed in a fight with another student and a man that was killed by a student after a school event.

      1. avatar Lt Dave says:

        The Kern High School District (KHSD) is headquartered in Bakersfield, California and serves the county of Kern located at the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley. The Kern High School District is California’s largest 9-12 high school district with more than 35,000 students and 3,500 employees. Founded in 1893, the KHSD currently includes:

        18 Comprehensive campuses
        5 Alternative Education campuses
        4 Special Education centers
        3 Career Technical Education sites
        1 Adult Education Center
        1 Charter School

        Yes, they have their own police department, although it has it’s own problems.

        That being said, if you conduct your own research, you will find that this organization is currently being investigated by the Kern County District Attorney’s Office for improper / illegal use of the law enforcement only CLETS system (a computer system that allows access to criminal and driver’s license information) wherein administrators asked the High School Police Chief to research students to confirm residency and for other issues.
        In other words, this organization is ethically challenged may have abusive administrators who feel privileged. It desperately needs a P.O.S.T. audit to assure it is operating according to accepted California Law Enforcement standards.

        1. avatar RocketScientist says:

          Ah yes. Let’s have the cops review the activity of other cops for proper adherence to cop law. I’m sure that’ll work out well. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

        2. avatar George says:

          Yes, but mostly, the administrators were to blame, and not the current police chief. He is the one that “outed” this illegal practice. The former police chief of the district (who is now a regular officer with the district) was the one doing the dirty deeds. If you ask me, they need to keep the current chief. Apparently, he is the only one doing the wrong thing.

        3. avatar George says:

          Whoops, meant to say the right thing…not the wrong thing. **edit**

    2. avatar gs650g says:

      Any chance they would actually engage a threat if needed? Bet not.

    3. avatar FedUp says:

      Saint Trayvon’s school (the one he got kicked out of before he lived in Zimmermanland) had a police department.
      Their main function seemed to be suppressing evidence of outside crimes (burglary) committed by their students.

      1. avatar Kevin in CO says:

        The little shits deserved it, each time.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          The “little shit” who did nothing but record a cop throwing another student to the ground “deserves it”?

          Let me guess, another devoted Trumpkin?

  4. avatar Reggie Browning says:

    Well, if I understand the article correctly, it sounds like a net gain to me. They went from not being allowed to have guns on school grounds no matter what, to being allowed if certain provisions are met, in California of all places. If the insurance is only required to carry on a campus and does not affect the standard permit, then there is no real loss here. Yeah, it’s a bullshit requirement that keeps poor people from carrying, as are all licensing requirements, but it’s still an overall gain.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      So you think now, but just wait until that requirement is extended to licensed carry anywhere in the state. They’ll start with the public places, then move to your own car and home, mandating rights-suppressing insurance requirements at each step. That kind of never-ending encroachment is what they did with smoking.

      1. avatar Reggie Browning says:

        Well, if they start doing that, then I’ll get angry. But, gun control was a slow creep, and the path to restoration of freedom will also be a slow creep. It starts with stuff like this, and then maybe people will realize that since they allowed guns in schools and no legal carrier shot anyone, that it’s really not such a crazy idea to allow people to carry on school grounds after all. This could go either way. I see it more as a precedent for allowing guns in schools than for requiring insurance to carry.

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          I see your point and where you’re coming from. We know that these people never act in good faith. We know they’re uninterested in actually doing anything for the good. Everything is geared toward depriving rights and rendering people subservient to the State.

          Looking at the concrete facts here, this is a precedent first and exclusively for mandating insurance, which adds extra expense for the exercise of a civil right, if you can even get such coverage. Charging for a poll tax to vote was deemed unconstitutional half a century ago. So this is a regression right on its face.

          Moreover, it’s a mandate for a product which the government already exerts extreme regulatory control over. So the government can now dictate the terms of this product which they now say you must have, thereby dictating the terms by which you exercise your rights. They make the rules for exercising a constitutional right. The Constitution was supposed to limit the government’s rule-making power, not provide a source of rights which they can restrict.

          Watch as nobody gets this insurance because no insurer will provide it. The precedent for school carry is ohony and fading, as nobody will ever actually do it. The precedent for insurance as a condition of exercising a firearms rights is real and metastasizing.

      2. avatar Reggie Browning says:

        Hm… Well, I’ll see what they do and if they use it to encroach on the liberties that already exist then I’ll know you were right.

        Though even so, if the gun control side is going to capitalize on it, then the gun rights side sure as hell better capitalize on it as well. Even if nobody gets the insurance and carries, we need to show that it’s an effective shut down of rights.

        Though this type of insurance does exist, and is more affordable than you would think. This California gun owner did a whole video on why you should get it, if you’re interested in knowing more about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTtplqSLxLY

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      As noted in the article – “It’s a trap!”

      By jumping through these hoops and/or buying liability insurance gun owners are once again giving tacit approval and agreement that the government, at any level, even a local or county school district, can in fact infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.

      Gun owners later complain that their Second Amendment protected rights are being violated and the government agencies only have to point to the long list of people who have complied with their unconstitutional regulations and claim that even gun owners have given them a mandate to violate their rights.

      Over 12 million Americans now have State-issued permission slips to carry concealed weapons, How long before some anti-2A group uses that as ammunition (pun intended) to prove that gun owners agree that State governments can infringe on the Second Amendment protections?

      1. avatar Reggie Browning says:

        No, I wouldn’t say complying with the law is giving approval to it. You can comply with the law and still lobby to have it changed. That doesn’t make this a loss though, as requiring insurance is still less of an infringement than an outright ban. Now that you have a means to have guns on campus, you just push to get the insurance requirement removed and take it one step at a time. They’ve opened the door both ways, toward more freedom and toward more restrictions, I guess. I think it’s more opened toward freedom, but it’s up to the district’s gun owners to push it that way.

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          Camel’s nose.

    3. avatar JohnS says:

      TLDR: law was OK; law changed but left an avenue; Kern is taking that avenue.

      It is indeed a step forward after a mandated step back.

      Prior to 2016, CA law had an exemption to CA’s Gun Free School Zone, PC 626.9, for holders of (the rare, at the time) concealed weapons permit. That law changed for 2016.

      However, an appropriate authority may grant specific permission; Kern is choosing to do that. (Try to imagine SF or LA school districts making that choice.)

      I suspect the insurance policy requirement is CYA for the district, in public relations terms.

  5. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Wasn’t that idiotic distance from the school part of what SCOTUS invalidated about the Bush “gun free schools act” since people living in their own homes would have been disarmed?

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      The federal gun-free school zones act explicitly states that it does not apply to people who possess firearms in their homes. Thus, you can “legally” possess a firearm in your home right next to the school (within the 1000 foot specification).

      The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the first version of the gun-free school zones act because Congress had no authority to enact such a law. So, Congress passed the exact same law again with nothing more than a small addition of verbage about an alleged interplay between firearms, schools, and (wait for it …) Interstate Commerce. Thus Congress claimed authority to prohibit firearms near schools under Interstate Commerce doctrine. Unfortunately, no one has yet challenged that rationale for the second go-around.

  6. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    Another case of not only government run amok, but private businesses, institutions, and organizations. All open to the general public! Not long ago ,everyone was arguing if its okay for private landlords, or contacted property management companies to prohibit, or deny a private US citizen /renter their lawful constitutional rights while renting *(as in paying money)* to said private party ! I remember a few people coming up with some pretty fuzzy-logic that rivaled Looney liberals! As if a US private citizens rights were some how magically limited as you walked into a Target department store because you walked into a place of business “open to the general public “. As if walking into a “sovereign country ” that holds sway , and is able to deprive a citizen of their civil liberties while shopping! Me no think so….

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Nobody’s depriving you of anything. You want to shop someplace? Fine, you do so only after you and the store agree on terms, just as with every other aspect of the business transaction. Don’t like it? Shop somewhere else.

      No shirt, no shoes, no service. Take your barefoot self elsewhere if you don’t like it.

      Mastercard and Visa only. Take your goofy Discover card elsewhere if you don’t like it.

      No guns allowed. Take your gun toting self elsewhere if you don’t like it.

      Sheesh! You impose restrictions on people entering your house, don’t you? Your house, your rules. Target’s house, their rules. I know, I know, “but….but…..that’s a PUBLIC place!!!”

      So the F&#% what? “Public place” is a distinction without a difference, just a made up legal standard that allows liberals to control other people. It’s still private property and that’s all that matters. It isn’t public in the sense of public-owned, after all.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Jonathan – Houston,

        Private/business properties do not entail infinite authority. Let me illustrate with a boundary example: a violent criminal incapacitates a victim, inflicts mortal wounds, and drags the victim onto private property. Even worse, the private property owner is a mean S.O.B. and expressly prohibits everyone from stepping foot on their property, no exceptions, even for emergencies. Does the private property owner have force of law to prohibit a Good Samaritan from stepping onto the property to render life-saving aid to the victim?

        If you say “yes”, you are saying that human life has zero inherent sanctity/value. (Government defines via “property rights” and “trespassing laws” where a right to human life exists — and does not exist.)

        If you say “no”, you are saying that there are limits on private property rights when exercise of private property rights will cause the death of a human life. And that means, just as a private property owner cannot prohibit external rescue, a private property owner cannot prohibit self-rescue. Whether or not self-rescue entails possession and use of a rope, bandage, improvise melee weapon, or firearm is immaterial.

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          I read exactly your first line of your first post only, about “infinite authority”, a point which NOBODY but you fabricated and tried to pin on me, then I proceeded straight to this response.

          I don’t debate on the basis of straw men. It’s dishonest, unuseful, and uninteresting.
          You may attempt a discussion on another topic, but you’ve forfeited all credibility on this one.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Jonathan – Houston,

        Building upon my previous comment, consider another boundary example. A private property owner invites a guest onto his/her property under the agreement that the guest must only walk on sidewalks outside and designated aisles inside … and only use the official doorway to enter/exit the building. No exceptions. Period. And the agreement includes various punishments and penalties for violations. If there is an earthquake, are the guests legally bound to only use the sidewalks, aisles, and official doorway which maximize serious injury, rather than exiting a window and walking on the grass to minimize injury? If the guests walk on the grass or exit out of a window, are they subject to the pre-defined legal penalties? Do they become trespassers?

        Again, the obvious answer should be “no”.

      3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Jonathan – Houston,

        By the way I am not necessarily arguing how the courts operate in our nation. I am arguing what is honorable, noble, and righteous.

        A guest that has a concealed handgun does not in any way, shape, or form damage a private property or affect a private property owner’s ability to use their property any way they desire. And a handgun is a life-saving tool that people frequently need to save innocent lives. Therefore, there is no basis to prohibit possession of a concealed handgun on private property … other than to simply exert lordship over someone.

  7. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    As said it sucks, but it is an incremental gain. That said my buddy had a $1M homeowners policy because he had a pool in his yard and he was paranoid of someone drowning. I do not think that the cost was that substantial. We will see if the insurance companies use this as a tool of suppression or they actually take the lawful nature/low actual risk of vested concealed carriers into account and price accordingly.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      You net gain will become a massive loss when the government forces insurers to regard firearms ownership as a separate risk and compel them to charge more it, whether at home, in your car, or anywhere else.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      The dollar amount is not what is really at issue here – it is the cost to our freedoms and our rights as protected by the Bill of Rights.

      In no other portion of the first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights) can any State require a fee, permit, or insurance policy before you may exercise that right in their jurisdiction. To cede that Constitutional protection only in the case of the right to keep and bear arms is ludicrous. And dangerous. These sorts of infringements must be vigorously challenged whenever and wherever they appear!

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        I agree, Cliff. The dollars involved are just a means to an end. Infringements come in all shapes and sizes, including fees, licenses, mandates for insurance, training, storage, and more.

        All of these are anti-constitutional ploys, wrapped up in sanctimonious public safety B.S., intended to diminish exercise of and interest in people’s freedom.

        The proof? No insurers are themselves demanding higher liability premiums because an insured owns or carries a firearm. Even in places where carrying is part of the job, such as gun stores and ranges, business insurers don’t recognize an exceptional risk and charge more.

        Really, for homeowners insurance, the big risks they demand disclosure of and premium adjustments for are swimming pools, trampolines, and dogs. (Some breeds are flat out uninsurable!) Their only interest in firearms is in passing, along with furs, jewelry, art, and other particularly expensive collections. That’s only from a property loss standpoint, as they want proof of existence and value up front, and has nothing to do with your liability.

    3. avatar gs650g says:

      Look for an exclusion for guns. They do it for air bnb and uber. You’ll need a special policy just for carrying. And the left will make it hard to get.

  8. avatar BlackoutFan says:

    I’ve never understood the ‘get insurance if you want to carry’. Insurance for WHAT exactly?

    Let’s say you pull the trigger. Either you are justified, or you are not. If you are NOT justified, then INSURANCE will not pay – because it wasn’t an ACCIDENT. (I suppose a negligent discharge COULD be the result…)

    I don’t believe insurance can LEGALLY insure against a non-justified discharge, because thats insuring an illegal event that did not happen ACCIDENTALLY. Insurance will cover liability for DUI damages, the rationale being you don’t expect to be in an accident, even if your intoxication put you at greater risk.

    If you pull out a firearm, and discharge it, that’s a WHOLE LOT of intent, not one iota of accident.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Some people unholster their firearm in the restroom, for convenience and with zero intent of firing it. They may leave it on the tank or paper dispenser and then forget it, where it could be found by a child and accidentally discharged.

      Or they may hang it by the trigger guard on the stall’s coat hook. When they’re done and go to retrieve it, they could drop it and cause a negligent discharge and they try to catch it.

      These are just two real world examples of negligent discharges without intent to fire.

  9. avatar notguiltfree says:

    Is this with open carry or concealed carry? With concealed carry how will they know? Open carry is obvious. Just don’t flash it around and no one is the wiser. : p

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Just what I was going to address. The only way to make this actually work is to require EVERYONE in the area to have that 1 mil of insurance, down to the kids in kindergarten. I mean, who knows when somebody might pick up a gun! And why would a doofus in some school think I am going to apply to him for permission to exercise a state-issued license? Can these people really be that stupid, that self-important?

    2. avatar George says:

      It is only for CCW. Open carry is now illegal in California.

  10. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    So I show up with my proof of insurance, get whatever golden ticket they are selling, then what is to stop me from dropping the insurance and keeping their golden ticket?

  11. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    The solution is really simple. Do not submit your children to the government indoctrination camps. Take your natural and rightful responsibility to educate your own children. There are many alternatives to government “school,” available to everyone if they care enough. Wouldn’t you donate voluntarily to efforts to educate children, even if you didn’t have any?

    1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      You do raise a good point. The quality of government schools varies considerably from reasonably good to horrific and dangerous. Parents must monitor on an ongoing basis no matter where their kids are being educated: are the quality of instructors and texts up to your expectation, and are your kids getting what they need.

      In my case the local government schools here are fine as are most of the teachers. My daughter only needed occasional help and guidance which initially she got entirely from me with the later addition of a math tutor I hired, since Georgia had entirely screwed up high school math. The sad truth is that the entire nation now has screwed up math, since they are trying to teach number theory along with math concepts, common core math will end up on the trash heap like so much else they have tried.

      1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

        It is really interesting how many people acknowledge that the government “schools” are basically all wrong, but then go on to say that THEIR local school and teachers are somehow “good.” How does that work, actually? How does one part of an evil and oppressive system suddenly become good? The lesser evil is STILL evil.

        The local school or teachers may well be doing their best as they see it, but it is a matter of what they are teaching BESIDES “math,” or whatever. The problem is the absolute lie of government “authority” to mandate anything, and pay for it with stolen goods. The problems are compounded by the incredible raft of lies, polluted and revised “history,” socialist propaganda and outright perversion being taught to further the goals of the non-voluntary government and keep generations of the people who swallow it as serfs.

        Individuals are logically and legitimately responsible for their own lives, and for their families/children. They alone are responsible for the moral and intellectual content of their children’s education. And they are responsible for the costs as well. Private charity would easily provide for “the poor,” absent the 75+% tax theft we’re faced with now.

        Those who choose to allow the non-voluntary government to indoctrinate their precious children with such lies and propaganda are a mystery to me. The logical answer to such things as this insurance scam to carry at the “school” is NOT to go anywhere near that place and to keep your children away as well – just as it is smart to avoid “gun free zones” and keep the children away from those places.

        Resist. Do not comply. Do not consent.

    2. avatar gs650g says:

      I pay thousands a year for my child’s school. And I p as you for public school. But it’s nice being treated as a customer not a taxpayer.

  12. avatar Mikeoregon says:

    Did anyone else hear the phrase ” Poll tax” in their head?

  13. avatar kevin says:

    Guns for Rich People!
    Jail for Poor People!

  14. avatar million says:

    would USCCA’s self-defense plan qualify with $1M theft liability? or NRA’s self-defense insurance with $1M civil suit damages protection?

  15. avatar Ralph says:

    Is there an insurance company that is willing to write such a policy?

    Or is what we have here a gigantic Catch-22?

    1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      Ralph, I suspect a standard million dollar umbrella insurance policy would cover the need, but even with that they would find something else to disqualify an applicant with.

  16. avatar FedUp says:

    If you do something illegal, the insurance won’t pay.
    If you don’t do something illegal, it’s hard to incur any financial liability.

    So, what in the world is the insurance supposed to cover?

    1. avatar Ing says:

      It insures against the possibility that poor people might try to exercise a civil right that the rich progs don’t like.

    2. avatar kevin says:

      Negligence. You shoot someone unintentionally. Insurance will pay even if that is also illegal. It’s like having an accident while texting- illegal, but insurable.

  17. avatar gs650g says:

    Bush41 played into their hands with the 1000 ft law. Taken on face value it can be used to create a citywide gun free Zone. Most areas treat it as a add on charge but technically you’re a felon if you drive by a school on the way to the range.

  18. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    That’s it! I’m not complying with any more illegal laws and I’m changing my name to Harriett Tubman!

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Oh yeah? Well, I’m not complying with any laws at all and I’m changing my name to Hillary Clinton.

      1. avatar FreeSlave says:

        Oh yeah? Well, I’m not complying with any laws at all and I’m NOT changing my name because I’m President Obama!

  19. avatar Fred says:

    Yeah, what comes next? In today’s times, the reviewer goes to bed with the insurance agent and/or insurance company of paid preference, anyone that purchases from that company is automatically vetted, then the rates and benchmark go up next year, then it spreads to all locations rather than just a public school. And guess what? There will still be those criminals and gang members with their guns because hey, they don’t use “applications” for their gun use. This is not a step forward, it’s a precedence setting step backward. Get that word? “Precedence” That’s the purpose of this and it’s the very same tactics used by the commies to take over this country for the last forty plus years. How do you think it got to where it is now? Additionally, I recently had a 22 year old speak of Bernie “oh he’s not a socialist, he’s a new guy and is introducing democratic socialism, it’s not the same.” Then another 22 year old said “besides, what’s wrong with socialism?” “At least that’s better than the capitalist rich people”. Well there you go, where did this come from? PUBLIC SCHOOLS!

  20. avatar adverse4 says:

    There is more than one way to skin a cat, and the cat don’t like none of them.

  21. avatar DavidZ says:

    You’re required to have insurance to buy, rent, or lease a car or truck; operate a bar or restaurant; own a public or private house; hire labor because all of these employ a risk to the owner or the public. There are many more examples.
    If guns ownership has some level of risk to the owner or public which it does, than it should require insurance.
    The insurance rate should be determined by Insurance companies who use actuaries to determine risk depending on type, training, concealed, etc.

  22. avatar George says:

    Update…

    The KHSD just approved staff members (who have a valid CCW permit) to be able to carry on campus. At this time, it is only limited to “certificated” employees, meaning teachers and certain administrators who hold teaching credentials.

    http://www.bakersfield.com/news/khsd-board-allows-teachers-to-carry-guns-on-campus/article_2ab5c4d9-e81e-5248-a4c3-6664fef1fda8.html

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email