I would be hesitant about attending any kind of rally, march or to otherwise assemble in a large group to protest a gun-related law issue. I agree with Tucker and MP in many ways. The media would look for any excuse to blow the whole thing way out of proportion, at which time the anti-gun people would say "See....look at those animals....this is what they are really like, and this is why we need to pass this ban".
I wrote my State Rep about a 5 paragraph letter today before I went to work, and I tried to present my points in a somewhat "respectable" manner. If people just start running off at the mouth without any sort of tact, their comments will likely be ignored and passed off as coming from just another hothead with the i.q. of a tennis shoe. Just like Tucker mentioned, it would only take one person to totally ruin any kind of gathering of people. Those are the kind of things that would be a major set-back to responsible owners.
I don't know very much about politics, nor do I follow any of the related media surrounding the issues. But I do think that part of this effort to ban weapons is nothing more than election-time propaganda. I'm not saying that it isn't real, or that there is no possibility of it becoming law, but it does seem to be too extreme even for a gun-hating democrat.
Another thing I have absolutely no knowledge of is the existing background check required for purchasing firearms. For me, buying a long gun is about a 2 minute wait while the dude behind the counter calls in my info. After that, I have to sign a few times, and I'm out the door. Pistols are a 48 hour wait, even if the background check is ok right away. Was there anything in this proposed law concerning a change to this process? If it came down to it, I guess I would be willing to wait 48 hours before taking the gun home than to not even be allowed to buy it in the first place.
There has to be a better way, as the guns themselves are not dangerous.