But the other side, the effort to get the US 2nd amendment to apply to states, something many consider to be a good thing, seems to me to go in the opposite direction.
Well, I would just note that these laws are sponsored by SAF - the same organization behind McDonald. It strikes me that one of the major arguments against McDonald is that the state can regulate firearms because the individual right to own firearms is there in order for the state to arm its militia. What the Firearms Freedom Acts do is put our opponents (and any wavering Justices) on notice that if they win with that argument (unlikely in my view), then they have to swallow the opposite approach as well - a state can be less strict than the Feds for the same reason.
IF we support the right and authority of individual states to keep Federal laws out, how can we support the Federal 2nd amd, being "in"?
Well, I would make this distinction this way - the Constitution grants the federal government no police power to regulate firearms at all. What power they do claim is through the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. Therefore firearms not made in interstate commerce, properly fall outside the scope of Federal law, Wickard
The Bill of Rights on the other hand is a guarantee of individual rights. These rights are preexisting and no government can justly
take them away. The States are not free to oppress their own citizens (segregate by race, deny them freedom of speech, seize their property without recompense, tamper with elections etc.) By the 14th Amendment, the Federal government is empowered to enforce these basic rights for all citizens.
So in both cases, the Federal government is acting in the proper role outlined for it in the Constitution. Of course the big problem with my argument is you have to overturn Wickard
to get there, and I don't see that happening - though it should.