This is yet another example of a state "firearm freedom" law failing to live up to expectations....
So then the reverse has to work.
If Federal "firearm freedom" laws pass then they will supersede state anti-gun laws. Right?
That's something of a gross oversimplification. The whole area of federal preemption and choice of law (where the laws of multiple jurisdictions could be applicable) is a huge, complex, and pretty much non-intutive subject.
For example, there is first the question of whether the Congress has the constitutional power to enact the law. Then there can be the question of what the limits of the application of that federal law might be within the confines of the scope of Congress' constitutional power. That for example was the sort of question addressed in
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) and
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), where the federal laws were clearly within Congress' power under the Commerce Clause; but the constitutionality of the application of those laws to particular activities was in question.
Also, if the particular issue addressed by the state law is also addressed by the federal law, there's the question of whether the particular federal law was intended to "occupy the field", i. e., be the final word on the subject. In that case the federal law preempts the state law and applies instead of the state law.
On the other hand, if a court decides that the federal law did not reflect an intent to occupy the field, in order to decide if federal law or state law applies a court will need to decide if the state law is consistent a federal policy concern or would, on the other hand, frustrate the federal policy furthered by the law.
Sometimes federal law will be explicit about how a conflict between federal law and state law is to be resolved. An example which comes immediately to mind involves the confidentiality of medical information regulation under HIPAA. Those regulations expressly provide that they don't supersede state laws to the extent providing great protection of an individual's confidentiality interests.
On the other hand a federal law could be found to preempt state law if either expressly or by inference the federal law was intended to promote national uniformity with regard to a particular issue.
So if you want federal law to preempt state laws, you will first need to be able to draft the law in such a way that it can be enacted by Congress within the scope of Congress' constitutional powers. Second, you will want the law to expressly state that it is intended to occupy the field and regulate the subject on a uniform basis nationally.
With respect to the question of federal preemption of state firearms law under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, see 18 USC 927:
No provision of this chapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such provision and the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.
