That could be argued as one of those conflicts between state sovereignty and liberty.

If one is a classic states rights proponent then this would be a case in which states rights and individual liberty are in conflict. In a conflict between states rights and individual rights, which side should the federal government come down on -- the individual's right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd amendment or the state's right under the 10th amendment? The federal government's power would be undermined by the state having the final word while the fed's power would be increased through supremacy of individual liberty, right?

My personal belief is that the hierarchy of protection should be individual > (state = federal), meaning that individual liberty should override state and federal interests, which should be in dynamic equilibrium. I don't think that this is always true under every circumstance and all occasions through time. But I do believe that as a general principal of polity.

B