[Mojave]

Your question?

Scalia has already rejected the lunatic privileges and immunities ploy that liberals and libertarians are so enamored with as a tool for perverting the Constitution.

Regarding the substantive due process scam, Scalia has said that “The entire practice of using the Due Process Clause to add judicially favored rights to the limitations upon democracy set forth in the Bill of Rights (usually under the rubric of so-called “substantive due process”) is in my view judicial usurpation.”

If you’re asking if Scalia will find the specific law in question so arbitrary that it can’t be applied in a way that allows due process to take place, then he might yield to precedent. The RTKBA would then be the equivalent of the “Constitutional” right to loiter.

[publiusF27]

Scalia has said that “The entire practice of using the Due Process Clause to add judicially favored rights to the limitations upon democracy set forth in the Bill of Rights (usually under the rubric of so-called “substantive due process”) is in my view judicial usurpation.”

But the second amendment already HAS been added to the Bill of Rights, and isn't particularly "judicially favored" that I have noticed.

[publiusF27]

Scalia has already rejected the lunatic privileges and immunities ploy

Wouldn't that be the ploy that allowed Thomas a route around the Due Process approach, making him, in your words, the only one not to drink that kool aid?

Oh, and I guess you should consider yourself pinged in response to post 1501. ;)