I believe strongly in states rights, but also the Constitution that talks about states cannot abrogate or deny Federal rights. Also could fall under interstate vs intrastate commerce considerations (gun sales).
Probably won't be the end of it, even if it is passed. Will be many court challenges.
Agreed that guns are an interesting aspect to the general argument, relative to the ongoing debate(s) related to the second amendment. Just took a few minutes to re-read some of the articles on the SCOTUS Obergefell decision in 2015 related to gay marriage reciprocity, and I see the gun issue being very similar. (Caveat. I'm not a lawyer, so I have no legal basis for that opinion.)
Also, I'm not a rabid states-rights person. There has to be a balance. But I do think that states have the right to set up laws - even very restrictive laws - on issues that they see best fits their state. A couple of these type laws, both related to CA, relate to auto emissions and poultry:
- CA is much more restrictive than, say, OK, in emissions and such. But cars can obviously be bought in other states and driven across state lines. Is it onerous on CA to demand greater emissions controls than other states?
- CA also has the new "free range egg" law, whereby all eggs sold in CA must meet requirements around more space for the chickens, etc. Other states, which do not have these laws, have sued to stop this under the Commerce Clause. (The pig people are also in on that, because CA is such a large market that if they do similar things with pork and beef, it will have a significant impact on those producers as well.)
Almost all commerce these days is inter-state, so the Commerce Clause could be used to justify a significant takeover of states rights to regulate within their own borders. (And, just to continue the thought experiment, what about simple marijuana possession? "Hey, I bought it legally in CO, so it's legal in OK." Might be stretch, but it's the end-game to the erosion of state-specific laws.)