People have been convicted over and over again for mere possession of an unloaded firearm in certain places in the US. The evidence that they merely possessed the unloaded firearm in their home was absolutely overwhelming.
But if I returned a not guilty verdict because "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," and "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding," then am I upholding or violating my juror oath?
We're talking about the juror's veto power here, which you recognize when you state the fact that there is no such thing as a directed verdict of guilty in a criminal trial.
But you're talking about juror misconduct where the juror lied in voir dire and lied about jury nullification. How is that germane?
And I'm curious: about how many cases does your 99/100 estimate constitute in these last thirty years since your bar exam, would you reckon?
You'd have a heck of a time finding a juror in either place that would think there was anything wrong with that. I think your concern about the right of a RTKBA juror to scotch the conviction is purely theoretical.
The thing to do is bring more and better Heller cases, and attack the problem from the legislative end. Where the 2nd Amendment has been consistently ignored for years by everyone, that's the only thing to do.
I was involved on the trial level with three, perhaps four, cases of juror misconduct. Two attempted to justify their refusal to deliberate with some form of "jury nullification" but it didn't get far. There just aren't that many cases where jurors mess up, and as I noted before any decent defense counsel is going to challenge the law BEFORE we get to the point of a jury deciding if his client is going to the Greybar Motel.
If there's a systematic injustice it needs to be remedied at the appellate and legislative level. The chances of one particular person with the guts to stand against 11 other people in a small room ALSO having a strong constitutional principle regarding something that isn't supported anywhere in his state, and ALSO having the brains to verbalize his objection in a way that (a) won't get him committed for contempt, and (b) will persuade any other juror, is vanishingly small. That's not the way to get any major change done.