[TKDietz]

Of course the state laws are relevant. Federalism is all about power sharing. The feds were to control certain things governments have a right to control in this country and the states the rest. The question in cases like these is who has the right to control a particular activity within a state, the state, the feds, or both? One of the determining factors in these commerce clause cases is whether the activity involves interstate commerce. The way the state laws are written can play a very important role in making this determination. If a state wants to allow something and has narrowly tailored state laws that discourage interstate commerce in thing or activity, then those laws are relevant in the determination of whether the activity involves interstate commerce. Just because something is relevant in a legal sense does not mean it is necessarily determinative, but it is useful in the analysis.

[inquest]

If a state wants to allow something and has narrowly tailored state laws that discourage interstate commerce in thing or activity, then those laws are relevant in the determination of whether the activity involves interstate commerce.

I don't see how. All you have to do is examine the activity in question, and inquire whether regulation of that activity is within the constitutional purview of the federal government. Anything else just unnecessarily muddies the issue.