The fact that we have an amendment specifically for the RTKBA notwithstanding:
In 1968 in United States v. O'Brien, (4) while upholding a protester's conviction for burning his Selective Service draft card, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized symbolic speech as, "communication of ideas by conduct." (5) The Court pointed out, however, that a "limitless variety of conduct" (6) cannot be labeled speech just because the person acting wants to convey a message. In order to analyze the law prohibiting draft card burning, the Court devised a four-part test. The Court said restrictions on symbolic expression can only survive the O'Brien test if: 1. The restriction is within the constitutional power of the government. 2. The restriction furthers an important or substantial government interest. 3. The government interest is unrelated to the suppression of free speech (content neutral). 4. The incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. (7)
- http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=JTSGQ3ZnLJzvzZQWQ8GmG G9gG4x2kQkcLxXmgDcg6hzqzZcJJ4tm!1972610752?docId=5 008155897
If you can prove that the restriction is not within the constitutional power of the government (2nd amendment) then why would you need to call on the 1st amendment?