Yes, federal laws take precedence over state constitutional provisions. That is, any provision of a state constitution that conflicts with federal law is unenforceable. This is explicitly stated in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the United States
If it does override it, doesn’t that make rights “guaranteed” by a state Constitution really flimsy? They can’t be taken away within the state, but the feds can still wipe them out without any changes to the state or federal constitution.
Sort of, and this is by design. If it were not the case, then federal laws would be a bit pointless, as states could just ignore them whenever they wanted by amending their own constitutions. States often have relatively low bars for amending their constitutions (frequently just a simply majority vote,) unlike the U.S. Constitution which requires very broad consensus to amend (2/3 of each house of Congress, then ratification by 3/4 of all states.) And states are also much more likely than the federal government to have one party more-or-less in full control of the government, often with significant and long-enduring supermajorities.
The U.S. Constitution is designed to give the federal government ultimate authority on a relatively narrow range of matters spelled out in the Constitution and leave everything else up to the states. Granted, that narrow range has been significantly expanded over the years, both via Constitutional amendments and via extremely broad readings of provisions like the Commerce Clause and Taxing and Spending Clause in court decisions.
Of course, passing a law in Congress is also not an insignificant hurdle (requiring at least a majority in each of the House and Senate and signature of the President, but often a 60% supermajority in the Senate on contentious issues,) so there would still have to be a decent nationwide consensus in order to pass a federal law overturning some provision of a state Constitution.
And, in order for a federal law to override a state constitutional provision, it would have to be a matter on which the federal government actually has an enumerated power in the U.S. Constitution. Otherwise the federal law would be unenforceable and the state constitutional provision would stand, in keeping with the design of the federal government's powers being limited to specifically enumerated ones and other matters left to the states.
The question In the US, what is the role of and relationship between federal law and state law? goes into more detail on which powers belong to the state vs. federal governments (or neither) and how differences between them are dealt with.