I expect there will be some action regarding background checks and "gun" databases in general. These are solely my thoughts and solely based on political factors (which may be totally different 6 mos. from now):

1. The ATF should not be in the firearms record keeping business. It should be an investigative and enforcement agency. Regardless of how pristine one thinks the ATF will be, another will think the opposite. Save some lives and create an independent agency, with appropriate firewalls for inquiries and referrals for investigations and prosecutions - the devil will be in those details.

2. Get the criminal records, "terrorist" records, and mental health records into that database. The criminal records and "terrorist" records will be easy; the mental health records, many absent from the present system, will be more difficult. The devil again will be in the details, especially as to appropriate firewalls for inquiries and referrals for investigations and prosecutions - and for expungement of incorrect or antequated records.

3. Enforcement of existing laws is obvious; but a review of existing laws is needed. Some "gun" laws are stupid or obsolete; some violate Heller and McDonald. Get rid of those. Take a look at proof requirements for "straw buyers". I've not looked at those statutes. Way back when (I was a young man), cases charging receipt of stolen goods, especially at the end of a chain, were easy to defend. I expect "straw purchase" chains are similar. But, problems like that are usually solvable.

4. Someone has to pay for all this. Over the last 50 years, I've seen bunches of criminal law and mental health programs proposed, with some enacted but not really implemented. Both Federal and state governments are strong on mandates and weak on providing funding for the mandates.

5. As an example, polls indicate that very high percentages (constitutional majorities or better) want criminal and mental background checks on all sales and transfers of firearms, components (e.g., mags) and ammunition. Again, the details matter; but here the details really matter as to the exact process to be used and the funding to be allocated for it. The regulations have to be in the bill. Regardless of how pristine one thinks the agency will be in drafting regulations which it puts in effect, another will think the opposite.

6. My experience (the 1968 statute and after) is that "gun control" proponents tend to overshoot - that is, they tend to insert added provisions which make the bill unacceptable to "gun control" opponents. Currently, I'd suggest that Sens. Feinstein and Shumer, and Congresswoman McCarthy, have the floor. They might accept points 1 through 5 as part of a bill, but will still want "assault weapons", "super magazines" and "universal background checks" included.

7. Thus, if I were the NRA honchos (I'm not), I'd not introduce any legislation; but simply push for the "gun control" legislation to have full hearings (no last minute 2000-page bills), and then be brought up for an up or down vote. We would then see how many NRA A-rated legislators do not have wobbly knees. Points 1 through 5 are not really my cause. When they are combined with the adverse "assault weapons", "super magazines" and "universal background checks" (I need the details on that one) provisions, I'd ask my congressman, Dan Benishek, to vote against the hypothetical "Feinstein-McCarthy" package.

Benishek's announced position on the Second Amendment (25 Jan 2013):

“I oppose the Obama Administration’s plan to limit the Second Amendment rights of law abiding gun owners in Northern Michigan. Attacking our constitutional rights will not make our society any safer. We must ensure that citizens in Northern Michigan - and throughout this nation - have the ability to protect themselves and their families,” said Dr. Benishek, an avid sportsman, gun owner and lifelong resident of Northern Michigan.
...
“Like many Americans, I believe we need to have a national conversation about ways to prevent violence in our society. But I don’t believe this is done by disarming good people. As a doctor, I believe we need to look at mental health issues in this country. I think we can make important steps to stop criminals from hurting innocent people without taking away anyone’s Second Amendment rights,” added Dr. Benishek.
Regards

Mike