Just need to remind our congress-critters (of both parties) of the nice change of guard that took place in Congress as a direct result of the 1994 ban on black guns. The Democrats lost a 40 year stronghold control in the House. Several very popular congressmen lost their seats over that single vote.
I believe it was Rep. Dan Glickman-D, Kan about whom I read the story of defeat as a direct result of the '94 black gun ban. Rep. Glickman was very popular and very hardworking. He was an author of the "General Aviation Revitalization Act" (GARA) that provided liability protection to small aircraft manufacturers and saved a large number of jobs in Kansas as the nation's largest producer of general aviation parts, products, and aircraft. Along with Utah Rep Jim Hansen-R, he helped garner 300 co-sponsors for this bill that passed in 1994. However, Rep. Glickman also voted for the black gun ban of 1994. As he was out campaigning he knocked on a door and upon introducing himself was showered with praise for his support of the GARA from a constituent that worked at an aircraft plant and credited the bill with saving his job. Glickman then asked, "Well, in that case can I count on your vote for my re-election."
The response stunned him, "I'm afraid I can't do that. You voted to take away my guns."
"Certainly you don't need assault rifles and high capacity magazines," countered Rep Glickman.
What he heard next should echo through the ears of every elected official in this nation. "Don't you tell me what I do or don't need!"
That sentiment, if not the same conversation was repeated thousands of times across Rep. Glickman's district and ended an 18 year Congressional career. (He was quickly installed as Sec of Agriculture after his loss.) Similarly, a lot of other incumbent "representatives" lost their seats and Democrats lost control of the House.
I just did a little looking and found a first hand account from former Rep. Glickman of the story I typed above. It isn't the account I remember reading, but it validates my memory. See Glickman's article in Politico for verification. Sadly, Glickman still thinks congress should be attacking guns, but he is no longer is position to cast votes in congress; which I think is part of what current congress tend to remember.
The media did everything they could to find other reasons for the sea change in Congress. To this day, most mainstream media are loathe to too openly admit that gun owners exerted such influence in that election.
If congressmen of either or both parties want to do something that will so obviously reduce his typical ~90% odds of winning re-election, let him push for a vote. We'll then remind our friends and neighbors that said congressman's response to horrific conduct from criminals and nutcases is to punish law abiding gun owners.