Sure they could have said that. It's nuts to think they needed to. It's absurd to think Congress meant to deny a woman her 2nd Amendment rights because she got caught driving a car in Saudi Arabia.
By what rationalle does the Bill Of Rights get subjected to the whims of foreign courts???
The same rationalle that allows a selected Amendment right to be stipped from ex-cons.
Ex-Cons aren't part of "the people," so it's not enfringement.
See how easy it is?
The entire point of the conservative movement is that we DON'T know what their intent was, so we focus on the language as written. Your point, like the other points on this thread belong in the forum for policy debates - the congress - not in discussing a court holding that should have simply been decided on the language of the statute.
And if the defendent in this case wasn't challenging the constitutionality of the statute - only the interpretation of the word 'any', these constitutional points are meaningless.