No. of Recommendations: 3
If the point of laws is to address major problems (can we agree that the ubiquity of high capacity/rapid fire weapons in our nation is a big problem?), then 50 different rules render all rules useless since a person can easily fill his trunk with machine guns purchased just over the border of an adjacent state.
The point of laws is to address major problems, and the point of Constitutional restrictions is to prevent Legislatures from enacting certain laws even if they're intended to address major problems. If the goal is to protect the ability of States to have militias, then you would allow them to provide for the arming of their citizenry. That might be in conflict with other public policy goals, but every constitutional protection does that.
Plus, it's hardly uncommon for the public policy decisions of one State to frustrate the goals of an adjacent state. We might allow one state to permit unrestricted alcohol sales...even though that makes it much harder for adjacent states to restrict alcohol sales, since someone can easily cross the border. Lot of traffic heading north into New Hampshire from Boston to visit the packies on Sundays. Any state can allow the sale of abortion medications, even though it makes it harder for adjacent states to prohibit access to abortion medications. Etc.
