That's useful if the U.S. Supreme Court bases their opinion on the number of people engaged in the cause. I don't think they do that. Nor would I want them to.
"And the majority has no need to fight, they can - and will - win at the ballot box."
Again, that's useful if we elect Supreme Court justices. We, however, don't.
Maybe you mean we'll elect conservative Presidents who will select conservative justices. Sure we will. Like John McCain.
Maybe you mean we'll elect conservative Presidents who will select conservative justices.What we'll see, in the first year, are proposals for a clarifying amendment to the Constitution. If that doesn't pass both Houses in that session - which is unlikely - we'll see calls for a Constitutional Convention. Where things go after that are unclear.
But have no doubt that a clear IRKBA amendment would have no trouble whatsoever being ratified. More than 70% of the voting population believes that we already have an IRKBA amendment. More than 40 states have IRKBA provisions in their state constitutions - the last to pass was Wisconsin, back in 1998, which passed in a public referendum with 74% of the vote.
We're talking about the difference between a gun-rights movement with five million activists and a gun-rights movement with fifty million activists.
I won't pretend to claim that correcting a SCOTUS mistake by passing a new 2nd amendment with clarified language would advance any of the rest of the conservative agenda - but I will guarantee that a declaration by the federal government that the Bill of Rights can be "interpreted" into a non-entity on the single most important guarantee within it, will not stand.