I'm skeptical that almost any meaningful gun control could withstand post-Heller, post-McDonald jurisprudence on the issue. If it did, it likely wouldn't have any effect on e.g. gun deaths, and wouldn't stop bad behavior anyone cares about. But people will keep trying, because we live in a Sisyphean hellscape where politicians will do anything, even if it doesn't work, so long as they get credit. Maybe some of them actually care about gun deaths. I'd be surprised if it was most of them, though. This is just their attempt to manipulate Democratic voters, who have wants our legal system can't provide.
But sure. Cory Booker knows how to end gun violence, and he can do it, if only you give him more power. Tell me all about that.
The sad part is, I actually liked Cory Booker, before he started running for president. He seemed to be a dedicated public servant. Anyone who, as mayor, sees the city in need, and steps up to actually do the work instead of pretending to pay people to do the work for him, that's someone I like.
But now he's backing Constitutionally-dubious and impossible-to-satisfy regulations at the federal level. On the plus side, this might get a definitive Supreme Court ruling about similar proposed legislation, like the bills mandating fingerprint-recognition gun locks. That's interesting technology, and I'm sure some people would benefit from it, but the very temptation to mandate the technology has been known to cause issues with getting those guns approved in the first place. Gun advocates are (justifiably) spooked by those types of limits, which can impact usefulness in the event of a glitch, or a Coronal Mass Ejection or unrelated EMP, or many other scenarios where your ability to defend yourself might be important.
So interesting safety technology was blocked by concern about over-zealous mandating of that safety technology... but if the Supreme Court says that limit is illegal, and less safe systems cannot be limited, then that's quite the boon. People get safer – but because gun deaths weren't stopped as much as (or in the same manner that) Democrats want, they probably won't be satisfied. I suppose that's reasonable of them – if you have a principled opposition to people owning even safe guns used only for good... then don't let them become safer as a compromise in the meantime? Is that their goal? Because as linked above, consumers don't have access to safer guns in California because of laws like these, and those are just run-of-the-mill safety improvements.
Of course, these things take ludicrous amounts of time to litigate, so nobody benefits from the bad law, truly. Except maybe Cory Booker, who gets to pretend he's very clever: 'I required all guns to have traceable bullets', he would say. Of course, nobody met that requirement, but if he can brag about it to his base, he might win the next election.