Generally, the burden of proof in a case where a person was convicted of possessing a firearm while having been a felon in a foriegn land would be entirely on the prosecution, and they would likely have to go to these places to find evidence to support their case. This would make the law totally ineffective as anything but a scare tactic, and any judge worth their robe would throw these cases out as soon as they appeared.

oh, wait, “and for other reasons” isn’t required? Sorry, reading all the horse-flop their special (anti-rights) interests churn out has gotten me too used to it.

Statists like DiFi would rather see a Marxist one-world government become an eventual reality anyway, so that’s why they are all too happy whenever they see their brethren American radical leftist judges citing foreign laws in their rulings from the bench.

Being that radical leftist statists like DiFi also seek to disarm as much of the populace as they possibly can, since it’s far easier to oppress the masses this way, it should come as no surprise that DiFi now wants to use convictions from foreign courts to bar Americans from being legal firearms owners. (See my above reference about that whole ends/means thing.)