I'm concerned about that aspect too. As others have pointed out upthread, the thin edge of the federal wedge is a dangerous thing to let in here for the first time, even if the immediate intent is good. I'm left with the conundrum of what to do in cases where individual states are violating a baseline level of civil rights. Two ideas present themselves.
Do nothing. Let the tyrannical states drive away all their worthwhile citizens into the arms of states that treat them like they are the engine driving the success of the state. (See California)
Or if action (as opposed to inaction) on the federal level is the best way to go, maybe do it judicially, by saying the states are violating the civil rights of visitors from other states and that they're not allowed to do that.
Anyway, I do agree that opening the door to the idea that federal legislation on this issue is even potentially legitimate is worrisome. Hard to get back in the box once you let it out.
If enough people wise up to what the old Presser case really says, the federal government will face even more loss of confidence and respect.
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the [2nd amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the [Illinois parade permit laws] do not have this effect.Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
The federal courts have read this backwards ever since, holding that states MAY prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.
Presser stands for the proposition that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, whatever else its nature, is a right only against the federal government, not against the States. The courts are uniform in this interpretation. See, e.g., Thomas, 730 F.2d at 42 (1st Cir.); Peoples Rights Org., 152 F.3d at 538-39 n. 18 (6th Cir.); Quilici, 695 F.2d at 269 (7th Cir.); Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, 965 F.2d at 730-31 (9th Cir.). Just as Presser had no federal constitutional right "to keep and bear arms" with which to challenge Illinois's license requirement, Bach has none to assert against New York's regulatory scheme. Under Presser, the right to keep and bear arms is not a limitation on the power of States.Bach v. Pataki, 289 F.Supp.2d 217 (N.D.N.Y. 2003)
I would emphatically NOT trust a federal court to get a RKBA case correct. Scalia screwed the pooch on the Heller case, creating a presumption of constitutionality for what he claimed were long standing prohibitions; but the "long standing" part is a figment of his imagination. While pretending to uphold it, Scalia actually reversed another old RKBA case, Miller.
Either Congress corrects this (and this pseudo reciprocity is not the way to fix corrupt courts), or the people admit the government is boss. I think the latter has been in place for generations, and it's all downhill from here. The Congress isn't on the people 's side either, it's a self-serving organization that is beyond "out of control."