But the Supreme Court just banned the rights of states to decide how they apply gun laws. Specifically, New York was prevented [days ago](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-gun-law-new-york-...) from deciding how concealed carry should be implemented.
Surely you can see the hypocrisy in only being in favour of state rights when it suits you.
You should read the actual opinion, and not the "summary" that this journalist put together. They didn't "ban the rights of states to decide how they apply gun laws". Simply that certain types of "may issue" permitting are at odds with 2A, because they deny Americans the exercise of an enumerated right for arbitrary reasons.
Permit Requester: I want to carry a pistol outside the home for self defense reasons.
Issuer: I don't believe your self defense claims are legitimate.
Requester: Why?
Issuer: I don't have to tell you.
SCOTUS enters the chat: This is no longer allowed.
There's a big difference in how you framed it, how that journalist framed it, and what actually happened. There is no hypocrisy here.
As much as it pains me to point this out, you cannot draw much of an analog between abortion and gun laws when it comes to states rights, because guns are protected by the Constitution very explicitly, abortion is not.
I think that it's more complicated than that. My take away was that NY gun laws allowed people to concealed carry with approval but were basically denying lawful approvals which ran afoul of the second amendment.
It ran around of the 14th amendment. Only people who donated money to the right politicians got approved for CCL. NY is still free to regulate handgun carry requirements, they just can't deny permits arbitrarily.
Surely you can see the hypocrisy in only being in favour of state rights when it suits you.