Some days, I can’t understand the lingo of today’s youth, nor why they use it. However, the phrase, “I can’t even” finally made sense to me today when I read the following story. Apparently, the United States Supreme Court has taken up a case where the plaintiff’s are arguing an idea that seems about as ridiculous as some of the things that Ben Carson has said. These two plaintiffs believe they should be allowed to own guns because their domestic abuse convictions stemmed from “reckless” incidents instead of intentional ones.
Let me back up a bit and explain why this distinction matters. The federal government has a law called the Lautenberg Amendment that denies those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence charges from owning a gun. Two men from the great state of Maine decided to challenge this law in federal court.
The basis for their challenge was that the Lautenberg Amendment was not meant to cover those who commit domestic violence unintentionally or recklessly. From their brilliant understanding, the amendment was solely meant to cover individuals who commit domestic violence intentionally.
Each of the men in this case were convicted of instances of domestic violence that, they argue, occurred as a spur of the moment decision (despite one victim saying that she had been on the receiving end of physical abuse previously).
If you look at the National Domestic Violence Center’s Hotline section, they actually list common excuses made by abusers to evade responsibility for their actions. These excuses are the same ones these two men are trying to use now to claim why they should be allowed to own a gun. The excuses of “I was drunk/high” or “I couldn’t control myself” are listed on theNational Domestic Violence Center’s website with reasons as to why they are ridiculous and shouldn’t be accepted as reasons for committing abuse.
So let’s piece this all together, since all of these legalese and craziness can get confusing:
- Two men were convicted of committing domestic abuse in Maine
- They were also later convicted of owning a gun, in violation of the Lautenburg Amendment
- This is a federal law that prevents those convicted of domestic abuse from owning a gun
- The domestic violence statute the men were convicted under includes both intentional and reckless violence
- These men are arguing that the Lautenburg Amendment wasn’t meant to apply to them or others who act recklessly
- To be clear, they are arguing that if you commit violence against your partner recklessly (i.e. you didn’t mean to do it), you should still be allowed to own a gun
Yet even the National Domestic Violence Center says that acting recklessly (i.e. being high, drunk, or unable to control yourself) is merely an excuse that abusers use.
So after all of that, I finally realized what the kids mean when they say, “I just can’t even with these people.” Because seriously, the thought that someone who commits domestic violence should get to own a gun, since they didn’t abuse their partner intentionally, is beyond ridiculous.
Featured image via Flickr, available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial license.
