When a federal court ruled that the Illinois handgun carry laws violated the Second Amendment and Illinois would have to join other 49 states in allowing some form of lawful handgun carry for self-defense, the gun control crowd was quick to rally and cry that part of federalism is to allow the sovereign states to adopt laws, such as gun laws, adapted to their particular situation and traditions, and its part of the noble experiment of federalism to have no carry for self defense in Illinois, blah blah blah.
OK, it is part of the experiment of federalism that most of the states don't have a FOID (firearms owners identification) card and don't want it.
When I point out that the State of Tennessee constitution declares the citizens of this state have the right to keep and bear arms, the state reserves the power to regulate with a view to prevent crime, the right primarily protected is self-defense and volunteer military service, the tradition lawful uses of guns (hunting, defending livestock, collection as curios or keepsakes) are not unprotected by the emphasis on defense. Tennessee had a permit to purchase a handgun with (potential) fifteen day waiting period; that was rejected when an instant background check system was put in place. And anti-gunners have told me that they don't care about Tennessee, once they get a National Sullivan Act federal law trumps state constitutions and state laws.
Anti-gunners are antifederalist pro-states rights to defend tough state gun laws, but turn into strict federalists if they see a chance to pass a federal law stricter than state law.
If you have a gut reaction of hating demon rum, reefer madness, smut magazines, "assault weapons", video games, any other scapegoat du jour, the only compromise is in the direction of more restriction, and each compromise leads to another.