Abstract: In this paper, we argue that a distinction ought to be drawn between two ways in which a given world might be logically impossible. First, a world w might be impossible because the laws that hold at w are different from those that hold at some other world (e.g. the actual world). Second, a world w might be impossible because the laws of logic that hold in some world (e.g. the actual world) are violated at w. We develop a novel way of modelling logical possibility that makes room for both kinds of logical impossibility. Doing so has interesting implications for the relationship between logical possibility and other kinds of possibility (e.g. metaphysical possibility) and implications for the necessity or contingency of the laws of logic.