The really interesting thing here in my opinion is why all of those things have been ineffectual. It seems to start when the anti-gun lobby proposes a law with the intent of doing nothing other than hassling gun owners (safety is almost always given lip service but never actually intended). Then the pro-gun lobby shows up and strips the teeth out of the law, even if by sheer random chance it happens to make sense. The end result is a mess of really stupid and confusing gun laws that don't actually accomplish anything other than confusing everyone.
It's not actually very interesting at all. Every compromise between "shall not" and "may" initiated by "shall not" is always a win for "shall not" and always a loss for "may".
It doesn't matter if it's gun rights, abortion rights, voting rights, or anything else, really.