[DaiHuy]

This is a tough one. On one hand I agree with the majority, but on the other hand there are instances the would or should warrant the dissenting opinions.

I think if a person is convicted of a felony in a foreign court that has a corresponding felony statute here, i.e. armed robbery or murder, what ever felony it may be, then they should lose the right to own weapons.

However if they are convicted of a felony in another country that is not a violation of felony statutes here, then they should be allowed to own a weapon.

It would need to be a case by case basis, which would create a nightmare for the courts or which ever agency would have to do the reviews. There is no easy answer for this conundrum.

[GrandEagle]

I think if a person is convicted of a felony in a foreign court that has a corresponding felony statute here, i.e. armed robbery or murder, what ever felony it may be, then they should lose the right to own weapons.
On the surface I would agree with you, however, the judicial standards are so different, and the courts so very corrupt in some of these countries, I would have a hard time even letting them be considered.
Does that mean that some people who shouldn't own firearms be allowed to? Yes it does, but we have established in this country that one is innocent until proven guilty by the accusing party. That is not the case in many "civilized" countries. Try proving you are not guilty of a crime.
Anyway, the discussion revolves around if the "ANY" in "ANY COURT" means any court in the world. I still maintain that that is ridiculous.

Cordially,
GE