For some things, yes. I think this sort of thing is compatible with being legislated at the state level. Other policies are not. See states with strict gun laws being undermined by neighboring states with very loose laws.
To me that seems like a necessary trade off for the benefits gained. The stricter laws wouldn’t have necessarily been achieved nor maintained had they not been enacted at the state level.
What does seem like something the federal government should be doing is mediating issues like this between states, without picking a side (of course, that is easier said than done given polarization in politics currently). Rather than giving us watered down one-size-fits-all policies that nobody likes, or worse yet, deadlocked at no policies or the churn of policies being implemented and then repealed over and over
The churn is largely an artifact of our electoral system IMO. If party seats followed national votes proportionally, the change would be far more gradual without the swings.
Of course, it's also not going to happen because proportional popular vote will strongly favor one party...
At this point I don't think the constitution has much meaning left to it. So many matters have already saw massive changes, sometimes even going back and forth on it. And Wickard v Filburn is still standing precedent. In this kind of climate, SCOTUS could easily chip away at 2A case by case, especially considering that the current expansive interpretation of it only became the new policy less than 20 years ago.
