That has not stopped the feds from passing laws that make possession of a gun by someone who committed an act of domestic violence, but it should not hold up to a Supreme Court test.
Most States have laws prohibiting possession by felons, however.
Interesting. Out of curiousity, are there any that don't?
Per the Thirteenth Amendment, I would suggest that states have the right to impose almost any restriction whatsoever on convicted felons as part of sentencing. That does not imply the right to change such restrictions retroactively.
Per the "Full Faith and Credit Clause", the federal government would be authorized to pass measures to make one state's prohibition against a convicted felon's acquisition of arms applicable in other states, if it could do so without interfering with law abiding persons' right to keep and bear arms. I'm not sure exactly what form such a law would take, but it could, for example, provide that no person shall supply arms to anyone wearing some particular style of anklet. States could then require convicted felons to wear tracking anklets for the duration of the prohibition on bearing arms.
Note that such a federal law would not be restricted to interstate sales (since it would be based upon FF&C rather than Interstate Commerce), but would only be applicable in situations where disarmament was an explicit part of sentencing. Further, its legitimacy would be predicated upon the fact that observing whether a person is wearing an anklet does not take any significant time or impose any expense, nor does it provide the government with information to which it is not entitled. Other measures like background checks etc. impose hassles and expense, and give the government information to which it is not entitled, and thus are not legitimate.