I really like that idea. My predictions on the House and Senate votes on a bill to implement such an idea: House 44 nays to 7 ayes: defeated; Senate 23 nays to 2 ayes: defeated. Common excuse: "I shouldn't be held responsible for some activist judge revisioning the Constitution. Next thing you know some judge will declare that "keep and bear arms" means "keep and bear arms". That's outrageous!"

Of course you're point is valid and hence outlines the necessary route for ratification.
I see a few ways of getting it through. First and foremost, it it should be adopted as a voter base litmus test accompanied by a few other new integrity based questions. For example - replacing the dead horse question of abortion with the question of a "Call to integrity" amendment (where do they (the candidate) stand?). Secondly a grass roots movement across the nation through the ballot box State by State to bring about a Constitutional Convention for such an amendment, thus circumnavigating the legislative representatives altogether. So it could be pushed through the campaigning litmus test process and become a conscience within Congress and the Executive or State by State on the ballot for Constitutional Convention. Since a Constitutional Convention has yet to place a single amendment into the Constitution, such an amendment would indeed be fitting as the first to accomplish such a task while demonstrating the ultimate power of the people. So how is it promoted? First the amendment is drafted and then promoted through alternative media, grass roots parties, such as the Tea party , Libertarian party and within the Democratic and Republican parties. I can see it as a binding catalyst in which all parties would be committing political suicide not to observe, respect and support the proposed amendment. Argument to such a litmus test question indeed displays a propensity to negate accountability on behalf of the candidate.

BTW... sorry for hijacking this thread, will pursue this elsewhere. If there's any interest. I'll let someone else nominate it as a topic if interested.

The 9ths first 2 opinions appear to be a very complete and well grounded opinion. What are the chances the SCOTUS will hear only those circuit opinions in conflict with the individual right that placed State safety interests (a conjecture based position) above the individual right, effectively rending the second amendment archaic (isn't that legislating from the bench?). I don't understand how any justice can justify rendering (legislating) an individual right as archaic by virtue of taking a conjecture based position of State interest above an individual right.

After seeing how the SCOTUS ruled on the ACA accepting it as a Tax when originating from the Senate ( a rather dumbfounding contradiction), I'm not so sure I could trust the SCOTUS to make a legislative free decision on these matters either.