Legal Myth Monday: 15 Of The Second Amendment’s Greatest Hits and Misses

You know what's funny?

It's how people use legal words and concepts like they think they know what legal things mean.

They don't - or, at least they don't mean what they think they mean.

You know what I mean?

Probably not - which is why I'm creating a new blog section - "Legal Myth Monday" to cover what things legal mean and how they're applied in real time.

In today's episode, we're dealing with all things Second Amendment which has spent a long time lurking in the constitutional shadows. Then came District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. Chicago, New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen.  

Suddenly, the right to keep and bear arms (and particularly the right to armed self-defense) was no longer something courts could simply treat as constitutional background scenery.

Heller recognized an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes, with self-defense at its core. McDonald made that right applicable to the states. And Bruen changed the rules for evaluating restrictions.  When the Second Amendment's text covers the conduct, the government must show that its regulation is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

So let's pull back the curtain, turn on the constitutional flashlight, and expose 15 myths about what the Second Amendment actually protects.

Myth #1:  The Second Amendment protects a collective right connected only to militia service.

Reality:  The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, including for lawful self-defense.

Explanation:  The Supreme Court settled the individual-right question in Heller. The militia language announces a purpose; it does not transform the operative right into a collective privilege.

Related Authority:  District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

What the Case Is About:  District of Columbia law effectively prohibited handgun possession in the home and required lawful firearms to be kept inoperable.

Holding:  The Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service and to use it for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense in the home.

Cheeky Reality Check:  The Second Amendment may mention a militia. That doesn't mean you need to show up at the armory with a membership card. 

Myth #2:  The Second Amendment applies only to the federal government.

Reality:  The Second Amendment right applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Explanation:  The Second Amendment was originally understood as a limitation on the federal government. Through the Fourteenth Amendment, however, certain rights protected by the Bill of Rights have been incorporated and made applicable to the states. As a result, the Second Amendment places constitutional limits not only on federal action, but also on state and local governments.

Related Authority:  McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

What the Case Is About:  Chicago maintained extremely restrictive handgun laws after Heller was decided.

Holding:  The Court held that the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller is fundamental and is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Consequently, state and local governments are also bound by the Second Amendment and may not infringe that right in violation of the Constitution.

Cheeky Reality Check:  After McDonald, a state cannot simply say, “Nice constitutional right you've got there. Unfortunately, we don't recognize it.”

Myth #3:  The Second Amendment protects self-defense only inside the home.

Reality:  The right to bear arms for self-defense extends into public spaces.

Explanation:  The Supreme Court expressly rejected the notion that the Second Amendment's protection disappears when a law-abiding citizen walks out the front door.

Related Authority:  New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).

What the Case Is About:  New York required applicants for unrestricted concealed-carry licenses to demonstrate “proper cause,” effectively requiring a special need for self-defense.

Holding:  The Court held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's right to carry a handgun publicly for self-defense.  Therefore a state may not require a person to demonstrate a special need for self-defense before obtaining a license to carry a handgun in public.

Cheeky Reality Check:  Apparently the constitutional right to self-defense doesn't expire when your front-door mat ends. 

Myth #4:  A citizen must prove some special or extraordinary need before exercising the right to carry for self-defense.

Reality:  Ordinary, law-abiding citizens do not have to prove that they are unusually endangered before exercising the right.

Explanation:  A licensing system that gives the government discretion to decide who has a “good enough” reason to protect himself is precisely the type of system Bruen rejected.

Related Authority:  Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

What the Case Is About:  Washington, D.C., required applicants to demonstrate a “good reason” before receiving a concealed-carry license.

Holding:  The D.C. Circuit held that the requirement effectively limited public carry to a privileged class of citizens who could demonstrate a special need, and therefore concluded that the District's licensing requirement violated the Second Amendment.

Cheeky Reality Check:  “I'm worried about being attacked” is apparently enough to worry about an attack but not, according to D.C.'s old system, enough to prepare for one. 

Myth #5:  Any licensing requirement for carrying or possessing a firearm is unconstitutional.

Reality:  Objective, nondiscretionary “shall-issue” licensing regimes can be constitutional.

Explanation:  The Second Amendment does not mean that a person must be allowed to acquire or carry a firearm without any screening or licensing process. What matters is how the licensing system operates. A “shall-issue” system uses objective requirements—such as a background check or safety training—and requires the government to issue the license when those requirements are satisfied. 

That is fundamentally different from a “may-issue” system in which officials can decide whether an applicant has a sufficiently good reason to exercise the right. Bruen treated objective, nondiscretionary licensing systems as presumptively constitutional, while rejecting systems that give officials the power to decide which ordinary citizens have a sufficiently compelling need for self-defense.

Related Authority:  Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v. Moore, 116 F.4th 211 (4th Cir. 2024) (en banc).

What the Case Is About:  Maryland required prospective handgun purchasers to obtain a Handgun Qualification License after satisfying objective requirements.

Holding:  The en banc Fourth Circuit upheld the licensing system, concluding that Bruen recognized the presumptive constitutionality of objective “shall-issue” licensing regimes, provided they do not operate abusively.

Cheeky Reality Check:  The Constitution apparently doesn't object to paperwork. It objects when the paperwork becomes a constitutional obstacle course. 

Myth #6:  The government can make you wait indefinitely to obtain a firearm because the Second Amendment protects possession, not acquisition.

Reality:  The right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes meaningful access to acquiring arms.

Explanation:  A right to possess something becomes rather theoretical if the government can simply prevent you from acquiring it.

Related Authority:  Ortega v. Grisham, 148 F.4th 1134 (10th Cir. 2025).

What the Case Is About:  New Mexico imposed a seven-day waiting period on most firearm purchases.

Holding:  The Tenth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that the waiting period violated the Second Amendment because the right to bear arms necessarily includes a right to acquire arms, and the government failed to identify a sufficient historical tradition supporting the waiting period.

Cheeky Reality Check:  “Sure, you have the right to own a gun. We'll let you know when you can actually get one.”  

Myth #7:  The government can require firearm training while simultaneously making meaningful training practically impossible.

Reality:  The Second Amendment protects conduct necessary to the meaningful exercise of the right, including firearm training.

Explanation:  Training and proficiency are closely connected to the lawful use of a firearm for self-defense.  A right to possess a firearm for self-defense would be of limited practical value if the government could simultaneously prevent people from learning how to use that firearm safely and effectively. 

The Second Amendment protects the meaningful exercise of the right, not merely possession of an object that its owner has never been permitted to practice using. That does not mean every firearm-training facility, course, or practice session receives absolute constitutional protection; reasonable regulation of ranges and training may still be permissible. The important distinction is between regulating firearm training and effectively eliminating the ability to obtain it.

Related Authority:  Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011).

What the Case Is About:  Chicago required residents to complete firing-range training before obtaining a handgun permit while simultaneously prohibiting virtually all firing ranges in the city.

Holding:  The Seventh Circuit held that the range ban severely burdened the Second Amendment right and granted preliminary relief.

Cheeky Reality Check:  “Here's your constitutional right. Now here's your mandatory training. And here's a law saying you can't train.”  That's not regulation. That's constitutional hide-and-seek. 

Myth #8:  The Second Amendment protects only firearms that existed when the Amendment was ratified.

Reality:  The protection extends to modern bearable arms, not merely eighteenth-century weapons.

Explanation:  The constitutional right did not come with an expiration date tied to the last musket manufactured in 1791.

Related Authority:  Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016) (per curiam).

What the Case Is About:  A woman possessed a stun gun for self-defense. Massachusetts courts concluded that stun guns fell outside the Second Amendment because they were not in existence in 1791.

Holding:  The Supreme Court rejected that reasoning, explaining that the Second Amendment protects arms that are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, not merely weapons that existed at the time of the Founding. The fact that modern technology has produced new types of firearms does not, by itself, remove those weapons from the Amendment's protection.

Cheeky Reality Check:  If the Founders had intended to constitutionalize only muskets, somebody forgot to put “muskets only” in the fine print. 

Myth #9:  If a firearm is commonly used for lawful self-defense, the government can ban it simply because it considers the weapon unusually dangerous.

Reality:  The government faces a serious constitutional problem when it bans arms that are commonly possessed for lawful purposes.

Explanation:   Heller distinguished protected weapons in common use from “dangerous and unusual” weapons. That distinction remains central to modern Second Amendment litigation.

Related Authority:  Barnett v. Raoul, Nos. 24-3060 et al., slip op. at 55–65 (7th Cir. July 9, 2026).

What the Case Is About:  Illinois's Protect Illinois Communities Act restricted AR-15-style rifles and thirty-round magazines.

Holding:  The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld the restrictions under the Bruen/Rahimi historical-tradition framework, concluding that the challenged restrictions were consistent with the principles underlying the Nation's firearm-regulation tradition.

Cheeky Reality Check:  Here's the important twist: “Commonly used” does not automatically mean “immune from regulation.”  The Constitution may protect the arm, but the government can still have a historical argument to make. And sometimes, surprisingly, it wins. 

Myth #10:  Once Bruen was decided, virtually every firearm regulation became presumptively unconstitutional.

Reality:  No. Bruen created a historical-tradition test not a constitutional demolition derby.

Explanation:  The government may still regulate conduct covered by the Second Amendment if it can demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition.

Related Authority:  United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024).

What the Case Is About:  Rahimi possessed firearms while subject to a domestic-violence restraining order that included a finding that he posed a credible threat to another person's physical safety.

Holding:  The Supreme Court held that an individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to another's physical safety may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.

Cheeky Reality Check:  Bruen did not say, “History shall be used only when the government loses.” History is the referee here, not the government's designated pinch hitter.

Myth #11:  The Second Amendment gives you an unrestricted right to manufacture your own firearm including a 3-D-printed “ghost gun.”

Reality:  The Second Amendment does not automatically exempt privately manufactured firearms from regulation.

Explanation:  The right to keep and bear arms does not necessarily mean that every method of acquiring or manufacturing an arm is constitutionally immune from regulation. Bruen requires courts to examine whether a challenged restriction fits the Second Amendment's text and the Nation's historical tradition. 

Thus, the fact that someone wants to make a firearm for personal self-defense does not, by itself, answer whether the government may regulate how that firearm is manufactured, serialized, or transferred. The constitutional question is whether the particular regulation impermissibly burdens the protected right—not simply whether the firearm was made by its owner.

Related Authority:  Defense Distributed v. Attorney General of New Jersey, No. 23-3058, 2026 WL 465147 (3d Cir. Feb. 12, 2026).

What the Case Is About:  Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation challenged New Jersey restrictions involving computer files used to manufacture 3-D-printed firearms. They argued, among other things, that the restrictions infringed a Second Amendment right to “self-manufacture firearms.” The district court dismissed the claim, and the plaintiffs appealed.

Holding:  The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal. It held that the plaintiffs had not alleged an actual Second Amendment injury because they did not allege that they (or their members) had actually attempted to 3-D print a firearm and been prevented from doing so. The court therefore did not decide that the Second Amendment categorically protects or does not protect self-manufacture of firearms.

Cheeky Reality Check:  The Second Amendment may protect your right to have an arm. But that doesn't necessarily mean the Constitution hands you a 3-D printer, a spool of polymer, and a constitutional permission slip.

Myth #12:  Anyone who has ever used marijuana is automatically outside the Second Amendment.

Reality:  Not necessarily. The government cannot automatically disarm a regular marijuana user solely on that basis without the historical justification the Second Amendment requires.

Explanation:  The Second Amendment does not permit the government to disarm an entire category of otherwise law-abiding people simply by labeling that category dangerous. When a person's conduct falls within the Amendment's protection, the government must show that the restriction is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. That does not mean drug users have an unlimited right to possess firearms.  

Restrictions involving addiction, current intoxication, or individualized evidence of dangerousness may raise different questions. The important point is that drug use alone does not automatically answer the Second Amendment question.

Related Authority:  United States v. Hemani, 608 U.S. 2 (2026).

What the Case Is About:  The government relied solely on Hemani's admitted marijuana use to prosecute him for possessing a firearm.

Holding:  The Court affirmed dismissal of the prosecution, while expressly leaving open questions involving addicts, people presently intoxicated, individualized proof of dangerousness, and other firearm restrictions.

Cheeky Reality Check:  The constitutional question is apparently more complicated than: “Pot? Gun? Prison.”  Imagine that. 

Myth #13:  Being between ages 18 and 20 automatically gives you an unrestricted Second Amendment right to purchase any firearm.

Reality:  The question is constitutionally contested, and at least one federal circuit currently upholds age-based purchase restrictions.

Explanation:  The Second Amendment does not contain a specific age at which the right to keep and bear arms begins, so age restrictions have to be evaluated under the constitutional framework established by Bruen. 

That means the government cannot simply declare that people under 21 are too young to exercise Second Amendment rights; it must demonstrate that the restriction is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Related Authority:  Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Bondi, 133 F.4th 1108 (11th Cir. 2025) (en banc), cert. denied, 2026 WL 1871313 (U.S. June 30, 2026).

What the Case Is About:  Florida prohibited persons under 21 from purchasing firearms.

Holding:  The en banc Eleventh Circuit upheld Florida's 21-year purchase age.  The court concluded that, historically, people under 21 were treated as minors who lacked the legal capacity to independently acquire property, including firearms.  

NRA v. Bondi noted that although 18-to-20-year-olds are adults for many purposes today, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that their constitutional rights concerning firearm purchases could still be treated differently from those of older adults because of the historical treatment of young adults and minors. 

Florida's law was therefore sufficiently analogous to that historical tradition under the Second Amendment's text-and-history framework.  The Supreme Court denied review on June 30, 2026, leaving the Eleventh Circuit's judgment in place.  

Cheeky Reality Check:  The Second Amendment may say “the people,” but courts are still arguing about exactly where adolescence ends and constitutional adulthood begins. 

Myth #14:  Once a government labels a location a “sensitive place,” the Second Amendment automatically disappears there.

Reality:  Sensitive-place restrictions can be constitutional but the government still has to stay within the historical tradition recognized by Bruen and Rahimi.

Explanation:  The Supreme Court has identified places such as schools and government buildings as traditional examples of sensitive places. But that doesn't mean a legislature can simply slap a “sensitive” sticker on half the state and declare the Second Amendment closed for business.

Related Authority:  Kipke v. Moore, 165 F.4th 194 (4th Cir. 2026).

What the Case Is About:  Maryland's SB 1 (the Gun Safety Act of 2023) designated numerous locations as places where firearms could not be carried, including private property open to the public and various public locations.

Holding:  The Fourth Circuit examined the challenged restrictions under Bruen and concluded that some restrictions could be historically justified while rejecting Maryland's broad presumptive prohibition on carrying firearms on private property open to the public without the owner's permission. The court's mandate was subsequently stayed while the parties sought Supreme Court review.

Cheeky Reality Check:  Calling someplace “sensitive” is a legal argument.  It isn't a magic word. 

Myth #15:  The government can regulate firearm acquisition, sales, and transfers however it wants because the Second Amendment protects only possession and carrying.

Reality:  Regulations governing acquisition can implicate the Second Amendment when they meaningfully constrain the ability to possess and bear arms.

Explanation:  Courts have distinguished between ordinary commercial regulations and regulations that effectively prevent ordinary citizens from acquiring firearms.

Related Authority:  Nguyen v. Bonta, 140 F.4th 1237 (9th Cir. 2025).

What the Case Is About:  California prohibited most people from purchasing more than one firearm within a 30-day period.

Holding:  The Ninth Circuit held that California's one-gun-a-month law facially violated the Second Amendment because the right to keep arms includes the ability to acquire firearms and the restriction was not supported by the Nation's historical tradition.

Cheeky Reality Check:  The government can't necessarily say, “Sure, you have the right to own one. We're just going to make buying another one practically impossible.”  At some point, “regulation” starts looking suspiciously like “denial.”

 

After Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, the Second Amendment is no longer the constitutional wallflower. The Supreme Court has made clear that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, that self-defense sits at its core, and that the right extends beyond the front door. 

Government may regulate firearms but it cannot simply declare a regulation reasonable and call it a day. Under Bruen, history gets a seat at the table.

Of course, the Second Amendment isn't a constitutional “Do Whatever You Want With a Gun” card. Rahimi makes that clear. 

The real question isn't whether a firearm regulation sounds sensible. Rather, it's whether the regulation is consistent with the text, history, and tradition that define the right. In other words: when it comes to the Second Amendment, the Constitution has receipts and the government better bring some of its own.

 

An Ounce of Prevention

Have you ever had those moments when you thought to yourself - dang, what I should have said was....  Or maybe you did something and later wished you hadn't.

Maybe like when your boss said something condescending to you and at the time the only thing you thought to say was, "That's a good one, boss" then later you thought, what I should have said was "I came here to do good work—not absorb bad management!"

Or maybe when you asked your wife if she minds that you go golfing with your buddies and she says that's "fine" - so you go and when you get back she's pissed off seven ways from Sunday but you don't know why.

Stuff like that.

This got me to thinking the other day when a friend of mine related an interaction he had with a local "Karen" in his neighborhood.  Seems said "Karen" had been riding his backside for the last few months because his Christmas light were still up.

Thing is, there are any number of reasons "Karen's" go off on people but it got me thinking of ways to avoid confrontational neighborhood "Karens."  So, I create a list of ways to keep your neighborhood Susan's or Jennifer's or Laurie's from turning into a Karen.

1. Make your property “boringly compliant”

Most neighbor conflicts come down to things that look like violations—even if they aren’t.  “Make your property ‘boringly compliant’” means keeping everything so clearly within local rules and neighborhood norms that there’s nothing for anyone to latch onto or argue about.  For instance:

• Keep lawns, weeds, trash bins, and parking tidy
• Check your city’s basic ordinances (noise hours, fence height, parking rules)
• If something looks borderline, assume someone will notice

This isn’t about surrender—it’s about removing easy ammunition.

Related Authority:

Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974) reinforced the authority of municipalities to establish and enforce land-use regulations. NOTE: the standards come from the ordinance, not the loudest neighbor.

 2. Control the first impression

People are far less likely to escalate if they see you as human.  “Control the first impression” means making sure neighbors see you as a normal, reasonable, low-drama person early on—because people tend to interpret everything you do later through that initial lens.  This can be accomplished by:

• A simple wave or quick introduction early on goes a long way
• You don’t need to be friends—just recognizable and polite
• Avoid coming off defensive or standoffish right out of the gate

It’s harder to complain about “that guy” if you’ve already humanized yourself.

Related Authority:

Prah v. Maretti, 108 Wis. 2d 223, 321 N.W.2d 182 (1982) recognized that neighboring landowners owe one another duties of reasonable use and that disputes between neighbors should be evaluated in light of what is reasonable under the circumstances.

3. Don’t feed the escalation loop

“Don’t feed the escalation loop” means resisting the urge to match someone’s intensity when they come at you with complaints, attitude, or accusations. The more emotion, defensiveness, or sarcasm you add, the more the interaction tends to spiral.  If someone nitpicks or complains:

• Stay calm, brief, and neutral
• Don’t argue on the sidewalk—it turns into theater
• If they’re wrong, you don’t need to prove it immediately

Escalation is oxygen. Starve it.

Related Authority:

In Rattigan v. Wile, 445 Mass. 850, 841 N.E.2d 680 (2006), a disagreement between neighbors escalated into a deliberate campaign of retaliation that ultimately resulted in liability for private nuisance. The legal lesson is simple: once a dispute becomes about "getting even" instead of solving the problem, every retaliatory act increases the likelihood that a judge (not just the neighbors) will become involved.

4. Use quiet documentation

Keep a calm, private record of what’s happening instead of reacting in the moment or getting pulled into arguments.  The point isn’t to build a case theatrically; it’s to create clarity and protection for yourself if things escalate.  If someone is persistently difficult:

• Keep records (dates, what happened, photos if relevant)
• Save texts or written communication
• Know your HOA or city complaint process before you need it

This flips the power dynamic without confrontation.

Related Authority:

Courts recognize that memories fade, stories change, and disputes become harder to resolve as time passes. Contemporaneous records—such as photographs, messages, logs, and written observations—can be powerful evidence because they capture events closer to the time they occurred. See United States v. Orr, 68 F.3d 1247, 1251–52 (10th Cir. 1995).

5. Choose your battles (strategically)

Recognize that not every annoyance, comment, or minor rule-bending is worth your time, energy, or reputation to confront.  The strategic part is deciding what actually has long-term impact: safety issues, repeated harassment, property damage, or whether formal violations are worth addressing.  So:

• Minor annoyance → let it go
• Pattern of harassment or false complaints → address formally
• Safety or legal issues → act immediately

Winning every small fight can lose you the bigger war.  What this means is that a person who complains about everything risks looking unreasonable, but a person who ignores a pattern of escalating conduct may lose the ability to prove the seriousness of the problem later. The strategic choice is not "never complain"; it is reserve formal action for things that have legal or practical consequences.

Related Authority:

The law recognizes that neighbors will inevitably annoy each other from time to time. Courts generally distinguish between ordinary inconveniences and conduct that creates a substantial interference with property rights. See Armstrong v. Francis Corp., 20 N.J. 320, 120 A.2d 4 (1956). 

6. Set calm boundaries

Clearly define what behavior you will and won’t engage with, but you do it without anger, lectures, or emotional escalation.  In practice, this looks like short, repeatable statements.  You stay consistent—calmly reinforcing the same limit if needed.  If someone crosses a line:

• “I’m happy to follow city rules, but I’m not going to engage beyond that.”
• Repeat as needed, without adding emotion

Consistency beats clever comebacks.

Related Authority:

In Rowan v. United States Post Office Department, 397 U.S. 728 (1970), the Supreme Court upheld a homeowner's right to stop unwanted communications from entering the home. The practical lesson is simple: state the boundary clearly, avoid unnecessary debate, and do not turn every disagreement into a confrontation. 

7. Build a buffer (social proof)

Quietly create a network of normal, neutral, or positive neighbor relationships so you’re not isolated or easy to target if conflict ever pops up.  This is important because neighborhood disputes often aren’t just about facts; they’re about perception and who seems credible.  If you have even one or two neutral-to-positive neighbors:

• Casual friendliness creates a “baseline reputation”
• People are less likely to side against someone who seems reasonable

It’s subtle, but powerful.

Related Authority:

Credibility, reputation, and perception matter when evaluating disputed claims. In Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485 (1984), the SCOTUS discussed the importance of reputation and the difficulty of determining truth when competing accounts exist.

8. Worst-case: disengage + formal channels

Recognize when direct, informal interaction has stopped being productive and switching to a more structured, low-contact approach is a better approach.  If someone is truly relentless:

• Stop direct interaction
• Communicate only in writing if necessary
• Use HOA, mediation, or local code enforcement appropriately

At that point, it’s not about winning socially—it’s about protecting your time and sanity.

Related Authority:

Courts recognize that when disputes become persistent and informal efforts fail, the solution is often a structured remedy - not more arguing. See Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., 26 N.Y.2d 219, 309 N.Y.S.2d 312, 257 N.E.2d 870 (1970).  Also, in Rondeau v. Mosinee Paper Corp., 422 U.S. 49 (1975) the SCOTUS discussed the availability of equitable relief when legal rights require structured judicial intervention.

The thing is, most people want to be reasonable.  Rare is the case that people flip out over kids playing in the street, or neighbors having a block party, or someone installing a pool in their backyard.

While most people want to be reasonable, some don't.  In such cases, keep a record, take notes, make friends where you can and, maybe, just maybe, buy one of those REALLY loud 1,000 watt speakers to blast Mozart's Queen of the Night aria at at all hours of the day/night and engage in some serious psychological warfare.

 

I mean, if Karen wants crazy, I suggest going lunatic crazy.  

Go all out.  

Make a scene.  

Give as good as you get.  

It may be counterintuitive, but sometimes crazy is good for the soul.

 

 

Disposable Income

Do you have more money than you know what to do with?  I know a few people like that.  I knew a guy who bought and traded twin-engine planes like most kids trade baseball cards. 

The thing is that people will buy what they want to buy not necessarily what they need to buy.

Recently, I became a card-carrying member of Costco.  Consequently, each week I get an email message from my friendly neighborhood Costco telling me about all the lovely thing I could buy - not things I value or want but someone apparently does.

This week, I got a notice about one such item that caught my attention called La Prairie Skill Caviar Liquid Lift.  Sounds French - which, to be fair, isn't a bad thing - it's just a thing....an expensive thing.  

Anyway, most times when I get these emails, it says how much the thing costs. What caught my attention was that there was no price attached to La Prairie Skill Caviar Liquid Lift which piqued my interest and got me to doing some investigating.

According to the official La Prairie website:

The new Skin Caviar Liquid Lift is augmented with Caviar Micro-Nutrients to help support skin's metabolism for augmented lifting efficacy. Day after day, wrinkles and lines appear faded, skin is firmed and youthful contours are revealed.

Sounds like fancy make-up.  Turns out, La Prairie Skill Caviar Liquid Lift costs an astounding $785 (USD) for a 50 ml/1.7 oz bottle.  

For $785, I'd want someone to come apply the stuff personally!  That's the thing, though.  While I can't see spending that much cash for something I can't even eat, other people clearly will and do.

The reason I'm bringing this all up is because I was talking to someone I met on the street.  Person was standing next to his spanking brand new Chevrolet Stingray Corvette 3LT Convertible. 

It was beautiful.

In the course of our conversation, Person noted that they were looking to provide for their family in case of their demise and was wondering to me whether they should get a will or a living trust.

According to Google, a living will outlines your medical preferences if you become incapacitated - essentially a durable power of attorney.  It addresses end-of-life medical care, such as the use of life support, pain management, and organ donation

A living trust, on the other hand, manages and distributes your assets during your lifetime and after your death allowing you to bypass probate (a costly legal process of distributing assets after death) and ensures your assets are distributed according to your instructions.

Believe it or don't, there are a whole lot of people in legal land who will say they can help you at low cost.  Popular legal website Rocket Lawyer says they'll help you create a trust.  Popular publisher Nolo Press has resources that can help you create a generic trust.  However (and I say this from experience working for an estate planning attorney), nothing beats the confidence knowing that you had a lawyer create your trust/will. 

I can't count the number of people we had to bail out in probate court either because their deceased didn't leave a will or the documents they did have were defective and were tossed by the probate judge.  Sometimes there was a trust but, for whatever reason, the trust was never properly funded and their heirs wound up in probate.

Anyway, I suggested Person take a look at Martindale.com to help locate a reputable estate planning attorney.  Aaaaaand that's about where the conversation fell apart.  

Seems Person was really into his money and wasn't really interested in spending money FOR a trust or a will.  Person was just looking for a way to protect his cash for his loved ones without spending any money or the least amount of money possible.

Yeah, it didn't make sense to me but who am I to argue with someone who was wearing a down payment on a house and driving an $185,000 vehicle? 

Thing is, we all decide what we value and what we're willing to spend our money on.  Person liked expensive things but clearly didn't value legal assistance as much as he (or his heirs) probably should (or will).

Word of the Month for August 2026: Constructive Termination (aka Constructive Discharge)

It's August and you know what that mean, right?!  

Well, for some people it's a time for new beginnings and in the case of others - a new job.

Thing is, any 1st day of any month is a day of new beginnings.  

Today's new beginning was one youngish lady with toddler in tow who I met at the city public library the other day.  

You know the problem with most public city libraries is that they are generally devoid of anything legal related.  Lots of romance novels, young adult mysteries, graphic novels about Batman and the Justice League but try to find anything legal related and you get bupkis.

Anyway, Lady tells me that she recently left her place of employment because her employer was making life at said place of employment too difficult to continue working there and she was now looking for something (at the city public library that has NOTHING legal related in its entire collection) to help her seek retribution against her now former employer.

What, I suspect, Lady was looking for was something related to constructive termination/discharge.   

CONSTRUCTIVE TERMINATION occurs when an employee resigns due to intolerable working conditions that were so severe or pervasive that a reasonable person in their position would feel compelled to quit. It is treated legally as if the employer terminated the employee, even though the resignation was voluntary in form.

So, imagine you love playing at a playground. But the grown-up who runs the playground starts doing mean things every day:

• They take away your toys on purpose.

• They yell at you for no reason.

• They make you play all alone while other kids get to play together.

• You ask for help, but no one listens.

Now you feel so sad and hurt that you decide, “I don’t want to come to this playground anymore!”

Even though you chose to leave, it was really because the grown-up made it so bad that you had no other choice.

That’s what constructive termination means at work:

“I quit…but it’s because you made my job soooo awful, I had to leave.”

From a more grown-up perspective, in Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (2004), the plaintiff, Nancy Drew Suders, quit her job as a dispatcher for the Pennsylvania State Police in August 1998.  She claimed that she had been sexually harassed by her supervisor.

In an 8-1 decision, the SCOTUS ruled that an employee faced with a situation in which a "reasonable person ... would have felt compelled to resign" could bring suit even if she had not filed a report with the employer before resigning.

After Suders, in cases of constructive termination, the "reasonable person" standard asks:

Would a hypothetical, reasonable employee — in the same circumstances — have felt that quitting was the only viable option?

It does not ask whether the actual plaintiff personally felt forced to quit. Instead, courts look at:

• What an average person with the same job, status, and in the same workplace would do,
• Under similar pressures or abusive conditions,
• With ordinary emotional resilience, not hypersensitivity.

To prove a constructive dismissal, an employee must be able to show:

• There’s been a serious breach of their contract of employment, and
• They’ve resigned in response to that breach and not for some other reason.

As to the first limb of this twofold test, the employee must be able to show a fundamental breach of their employment contract. This could be a breach of either an express contractual term or breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence but, in either case, this must be sufficiently serious so as to justify termination of their contract.

As to the second limb of the test, the employee must show that the actions of the employer resulted in their resignation. This often means that the employee’s decision to resign must quickly follow the conduct complained of, unless they’ve made it clear that they’re working under protest.  

 If there is a marked time gap between the conduct complained of and the employee either lodging a formal grievance or handing in their resignation, an adverse inference can potentially be drawn here from any delay. 

The thing is that not all situations qualify as constructive termination and in some instances, courts have considered facts on a case-by-case basis.  It is important to know what's what before acting.  Some situations which MIGHT qualify as constructive termination where:

1. Demotion Without Cause

• An employee is suddenly demoted without explanation or justification.  If accompanied by humiliation, pay cuts, or loss of duties, this may cross the line into constructive discharge.

2. Unwarranted Reassignments

• A manager repeatedly transfers an employee to undesirable shifts or far-away locations to “encourage” resignation.  Example: Moving a single mother from a daytime role to an overnight one without justification. 

3. Unrealistic or Punitive Workload

• A high-performing employee is suddenly assigned an impossible workload with the goal of setting them up to fail. If this is targeted retaliation (e.g., after reporting harassment), it could support a claim. 

4. Exclusion and Isolation

• An employee is systematically excluded from meetings, communications, or work-related decisions.  If this is retaliatory or based on discrimination, it may be grounds for constructive discharge.

5. Microaggressions or Patterned Disrespect

• Persistent subtle discrimination (e.g., sexist jokes, mocking religious beliefs) that creates a hostile work environment. Even if no single act is severe, the cumulative effect can rise to an intolerable level.

6. Ignoring Workplace Harassment

• An employer fails to act after multiple reports of harassment (verbal, physical, or online), leaving the employee feeling unsafe or unsupported.  Courts often consider employer inaction or retaliation as critical in these cases. 

7. Forced “Resignation” Under Pressure

• A supervisor tells an employee: “Resign or be fired.”  Even if the employee chooses to resign, courts may find this is constructive termination due to coercion.

In case you were wondering, there are a number of REAL cases involving constructive termination, such as:

1. Green v. Brennan, 578 U.S. 547 (2016) 

Holding: In a federal employment constructive discharge claim, the limitations period begins when the employee resigns, not when the last discriminatory act occurs.

Key Takeaway: This case clarified the timing for filing a claim — constructive discharge claims accrue on the date of resignation, not earlier. 

2. Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 7 Cal. 4th 1238, 876 P.2d 1022 (1994)

Court: Supreme Court of California

• Facts: Employee resigned alleging intolerable working conditions, including employer inaction over workplace misconduct.

• Holding: The court ruled that constructive termination exists when the employer knowingly permits conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would be forced to resign. The court set the standard for California constructive discharge claims.

Key takeaway: This is the leading California case that explains when resignation counts as wrongful termination.

3. MacKenzie v. Miller Brewing Co., 241 F.3d 870 (7th Cir. 2001)

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit

• Facts: Plaintiff alleged gender discrimination and a hostile work environment, leading her to resign.

• Holding: The court ruled against her, emphasizing that conditions must be objectively intolerable, not just unpleasant or stressful.

Key takeaway: Demonstrates that courts require more than subjective dissatisfaction; conditions must meet an objective threshold of severity.

4. Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2000)

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit

• Facts: A city employee claimed constructive termination after a co-worker groped her and management failed to act.

• Holding: The court found the single incident, though serious, did not create such intolerable conditions as to support constructive discharge.

Key takeaway: Failure to act can sometimes support a claim, but courts still require the conditions to be pervasive or ongoing.

5. Fischer v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 742 F.3d 377 (9th Cir. 2014)

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit

• Facts: Employee alleged retaliation, demotion, and emotional stress that forced resignation.

• Holding: The court held that while the workplace was unpleasant, it did not meet the threshold for constructive discharge.

Key takeaway: Not every demotion, reassignment, or unpleasant condition rises to the level of constructive termination.

Bottom line, constructive termination cases can be tricky.  Just because you feel that you were treated unfairly doesn't mean that said treatment raises to the "reasonable person" standard.  Best to document everything and consult with an attorney before doing anything.