# Doesn't the 2nd Amendment technically forbid ANY federal gun laws?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-the-2nd-amendment-technically-forbid-any-federal-gun-laws/440402>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [March 7, 2008, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-the-2nd-amendment-technically-forbid-any-federal-gun-laws/440402 "2008-03-07T02:09:26Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 13

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\
**Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-the-2nd-amendment-technically-forbid-any-federal-gun-laws/440402/241 "2008-03-27T03:20:04Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=Stealth Potato]  
Hwwwwwaaaahhh? I’m sorry, that just about made my brain explode. :dubious:  
[/quote]  
Then you should really check out the rule against perpetuities.

> [@Stealth Potato](#):
>
> No, child pornography is not a “class” of speech; it is a specific act (with actual victims) that may be carried out through channels of communication.

Let me quote someone: “Hwwwwwaaaahhh? I’m sorry, that just about made my brain explode. :dubious:” Wherever did you get the idea that child pornography isn’t a “class” of speech?

> [@Stealth Potato](#):
>
> Thermonuclear weapons are not “arms,” except in the most vague sense possible. They certainly do not fall into the protected class established in _Miller_.

Seeing as how themonuclear devices weren’t invented when Miller was decided, I think it is safe to assume they weren’t protected by Miller. Feel free to substitute “heavy artillery” or some other military weapon of your choosing for the example.

> [@Stealth](#):
>
> Simply put, there should be no disparity of scrutiny. All these things are rights of the individual that the federal government has no authority to regulate. Ideally, this discussion of levels of scrutiny would be meaningless.

What standard would you have the courts use for all these cases? Rational basis? Strict scrutiny. Something in between? As I’ve said, I’m not a fan of these levels, but I am interested in your view of which standard should be used.

> [@Stealth Potato](#):
>
> No, federal laws prohibiting such things are not Constitutional. Where exactly in the Constitution is the federal government granted authority to regulate private possession of drugs? (Yeah, I already know the “justification”: the commerce clause. Somehow I don’t buy that laws using a power to regulate commerce as a justification for criminalizing private acts of individuals should have ever passed Constitutional muster.)

If you want to make a federalism argument about over the issue, feel free. I don’t think it really applies to the District of Columbia, but feel free to convince me otherwise.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-the-2nd-amendment-technically-forbid-any-federal-gun-laws/440402.md?page=12)