[GoLightly]

No foreign court ruled away his RKBA in the US, an American court did. As an American citizen, he committed a bad act on foreign soil. You demand that we put blinders on the moment someone leaves our soil. I do not.

Looking over at that other thread, you seem to be looking for the court to have overturn the constitutionality of Federal Code § 922 because of this case. This is not the case to do that. It's not the case to even begin to try to do that. This case was purely about an ambiguity of the interpretation of a single word within the code.

[P_A_I]

Maybe it's just me, but the intent of all of the writers of the 2nd amendment & those that voted to make it into law meant it to say that the right of "all American people" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. [by foreign courts]

No foreign court ruled away his RKBA in the US, an American court did.

Nope, the 'justice dept' simply decreed that he had been convicted, and denied him his RKBA's.

As an American citizen, he committed a bad act on foreign soil.

So you, and the feds claim. Why should an alleged 'bad act' there lose him rights here?

You demand that we put blinders on the moment someone leaves our soil. I do not.

I demand that our RKBA's not be deprived without due process. You do not.

Looking over at that other thread, you seem to be looking for the court to have overturn the constitutionality of Federal Code § 922 because of this case.

Exactly. That is their duty, under their oath to support the Constitution.

This is not the case to do that. It's not the case to even begin to try to do that. This case was purely about an ambiguity of the interpretation of a single word within the code.

So you would have us believe. -- I believe it's an issue of Constitutional principle. No citizen should lose his RKBA's by the decree of a foreign court.