The problem is that if the federal government doesn’t step in to define this—and they have to a great extent—then states do so with the disaster of state-by-state laws. The judiciary is not inclined to fix, so the federal government should. Otherwise, you fight this one state at a time, risk and worry about what the law is as you travel around the U.S. Just as other areas, I see no reason for the federal government to set national interpretation and standard. What is the supreme court to do, say each state can infringe to the local choice, let the feds set reasonable national standard, or the court say do not infringe means all gets thrown out? it is a mess and I’d rather have Congress and the president show some leadership instead of leaving this to the state house in Sacramento, for example.
You can't be serious. State sovereignty and state laws are built into the whole structure of our Free Constitutional Republic. Our Free Constitutional Republic has been one of the few exception is the recorded history of freedom and well-being for the average citizen - certainly not a "disaster".
The issue of differing state laws that you're concerned with is moderated by the Full Faith and Credit Clause in which one state's courts honor the judgments of courts in another.
it is a mess
Freedom and our Free Constitutional Republic can be slow and messy, but it's WAY ahead of whatever's in second place.