As usual, the proposals range from completely ineffective to absolute BS. But that's OK, because the motive for the anti-gun crowd isn't actually to stop mass murders.
The proposals include licensing requirements for people who complete their own firearms, a ban on mail-ordering ammunition, a lost-or-stolen reporting requirement that will punish honest gun owners for being victimized by criminals, banning magazine-fed semi-auto firearms even harder since the first ban didn't stop people, and a bill forbidding possession of normal-capacity magazines including those previously owned.
While I was writing this post, I was thinking to myself: there are reasons I won't live in California. And it's not really hard to expand that list to other states. Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, the obvious ones, and then there are a few on the list that might be tolerable but I'd have to read the laws carefully and consider whether I could put up with them or whether living in the state would be an unacceptable risk of being thrown in jail for having a firearm the government did not like.
And that led inexorably to the idea that gun control is a political filter. Not in the usual sense, where voters decide who to vote for based on the issue, but where politicians write laws that determine whether their political opponents are willing to tolerate living in their jurisdiction.
I have to suspect that laws like this are a major factor in turning certain states deep blue. The more gun control that California or New York pass, the more they drive gun owners out of the state. And even though they are pissing off voters rather than serving voters, they are also increasing their own reelection chances by essentially threatening people with jail time for remaining in their states.
That's why a robust 2nd Amendment is vital. It protects us from this kind of political extortion.