Every single one of these laws, if enacted and enforced, would absolutely prevent people who aren't going to commit a crime from obtaining a firearm.
Your "Gun Free Zones" are actually "Target Rich Environments." Do you think it a coincidence that all but one of the last 20 mass shooting occurred in one of your "gun free zones?" According to the BATFE, the majority of guns used in crimes are about 10 years old or more, and are obtained by theft or purchase on the street from other criminals. Do you ACTUALLY think any of these unenforceable ideas will do the slightest bit of good? Are you that naive? The school shooting in Colorado was done with stolen guns. So was the shooting in Connecticutt. What do you propose? Have the criminal undergo a background check before he steals a firearm? The best way to stop school shooting is to have someone there who will shoot back, Unless you think it is a complete accident that mass shooters nearly always plan their shootings in advance to happen in "gun free zones," where they can inflict maximum casualties with no one able to stop them?
When was the last time you heard of a shooting at a police station or a gun range? Or anywhere that the prospective victims were likely to be armed? I can think of one, when Gabby Giffords was shot. Even then, the shooter positioned himself in such a manner that the couple of people there who were armed were unable to get a clear shot.
It is difficult to defend against a well-planned ambush when you are armed and expecting it. When you are unarmed and caught by surprise, it is impossible.
The NRA that you so despise championed the current background check system. In 2013, that system caught more than 70,000 people who were questionable about firearms purchases. The BATFE, tasked with enforcement of firearms law, responded in their usual efficient manner: They prosecuted less than 100 of more than 70,000 cases, and obtained less than 30 convictions. What makes you think that more onerous background checks, on private purchases, which are intrusions on privacy and completely outside the purview of the Government, which will be enforced no better than the current system, will do any good? According to the FBI, privately purchased firearms that would be subjected to useless background checks such as you and Feinstein champion, account for a tiny fraction of one percent of the crimes committed with firearms, the exception being domestic violence incidents. My grandson, who is currently on active duty, could not receive a deer rifle from me without a background check. Since this firearm would not be involved in interstate commerce, the Federal Government has no authority to mandate such a background check.
In short, there is not a single gun control proposal currently being touted that would have any impact on crime. Every one of them is either counterproductive or unenforceable. The majority of murders in this country are perpetrated by Black and Hispanic gang bangers, and occur in a few cities. Concentrate on the criminals, instead of trying to criminalize the innocent.

Richard; many here know the terror of being caught on the business end weapons...It is quite handy when one can shoot back...barring that, it still is not clear how you and others perceive that laws that restrict shovels will prevent determined people from digging holes...so to speak.

I find Senator Feinstein's political drama repulsive. There is no 'endless litany of massacres' in the United States. This is the very kind of overstatement for political gain, combined with media turning the lunatics into hero's in the eyes of other lunatics for ratings and their endless desire to spread misery that aggravate the situation.

Have you seen any recommendation in any of the proposed legislation that even asks the media to cooperate? Of course not...That would threaten first amendment rights...And more importantly the coverage is vitally important to the political goals of total population control...under the guise of appearing to do something...

The 'endless litany of massacres' is 10 to 15 incidents annually. How in your mind does any of the proposed legislation filter 10,15, 20 or even 100 potential lunatics, who may not be lunatics when they acquire the weapon by the way, out of 320 million people?

Is it being suggested that we start with the assumption that, until proved otherwise, everyone is a potential lunatic?