My guess at this point is that they pass some sort of backgrounds check and most of the rhetoric by many is simply posturing. Will any side be noted for compromise if that happens? Probably be greeted w/someone saying, "That depends on what compromise means."
Haven't looked at whatever proposals regarding checks is currently on the table. I assume they will write into law a manner to finance and to enforce the law. In Printz/Mack v. United States, sometimes called the Brady-law case (decided June 27, 1997) the question is answered: Does the 10th Amendment prohibit the federal government from commanding local police authorities to implement federal police mandates, and conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers? Yes. 5-4 The problem was resolved...somewhat...w/the passage of a law that allowed the feds to simply use state resources as long as the cost of each program was under a $50 million threshold.
--Supreme Court Gun Cases, Kopel, Halbrook, Korwin
Here's one from the same volume: Cummings v. Missouri (1866) Is deprivation or suspension of a person's civil rights, including the right to bear arms, a form of punishment. Yes.
Or this one, Cruikshank, United States v., * 1875
Does the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose depend on the Constitution for its existence. NO. Does the 2nd Amendment have no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, and prevent Congress from infringing on the right to bear arms. YES.
This one: DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services 1989, Does the 14th Amendment guarantee that a state must protect its citizens from private violations of life, liberty or property. NO
And this one: Logan v. United States, 1980, Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee a preexisting right recognized by the Constitution, and not a right created by the Constitution. YES; Is a prisoner in legal custody entitled to protection "while he is deprived of ordinary means of defending and protecting himself" YES
Although judging by news reports about the New Orleans jail system, at least one inmate there has his very own private semi-automatic...while still incarcerated...to protect himself...and whatnot. In prison, the most regimental system we have, people find a way to arm themselves. Not recognizing that fact will provide little comfort to those parents whose children are harmed in the future because lawmakers refuse to look at the possibility of protecting those children where they are mandated to attend school. If a prisoner in legal custody is entitled to protection, how much more our children, who are mandated to attend school?