Well, not so much money, but political capital. For the uninitiated 'political capital' basically means "How many favors can I horsetrade in exchange for what I want to get done?" The president has a limited amount, as does the legislature (in whole and in part), and even to some extent the courts have some to use. I won't go into the deeper dynamics, but know it exists.
So in his first term, Obama pretty much used up what he had with the health care debacle. However, with reelection he gets a new 'deposit' in his bank, and like any paycheck-to-paycheck American, he had it spent before it was in the bank. This leads me to conclude that the whole gun control smokescreen we are seeing now is, at least in part, manufactured. This was coming, probably as long as 4 years ago. He just now got the cash in hand (Sandy Hook) and he's getting ready to spend it (Biden, Congress). It's the Statist agenda come to fruition, and we're all going to suffer from it.
Now as I mentioned, even the courts (SCOTUS, especially) has a limited amount of capital to toy around with. We see this as far back as the 1790's, and a more recent example would be SCOTUS weighing in on the health care mandate, and giving it a pass. On the other hand, they spent some capital in 2008 and 2010 with the Heller and McDonald cases. With new gun cases being petitioned to SCOTUS regularly, they'll eventually have to take one (Kachalsky?) and decide what to do with it when the time times. Problem is, do we want them to spend it on a carry case, or on something more important, like whatever Obama & Friends are about to do? It's kind of a sticky situation for the courts, more than it is for Congress.
On the other hand, Congress is more susceptible in some ways to the whole horsetrading game. This is why you should let each of your critters know that a bad move on their part will inevitably result in a serious overdraft on their account, i.e. no more electoral wins. Obama hasn't a care, since he's out at the end of this term. Biden, as much as he may want to be president, isn't going to get the nod. If he does force the nod, he's not going to make it to the top. That would be like electing Rainman, minus the cool savant tricks, to be POTUS. No way.
This is a long game, now. What happens in 3 months is irrelevant, compared to what we do with POTUS elections in 4 years, SCOTUS picks (someone will end up going in 4 years, I suspect) and SCOTUS cases. We're not playing checkers, we're playing chess. (While that is oft cited by a certain subset within the gun rights community, I have come to learn that the notion is hardly original - Jefferson basically lived the idea of "chess, not checkers" - you can't fool a student of history!)
What I am ultimately suggesting is that you CONTINUE to pester the White House and Congress about this, tell them "NO!" But also remember that the Civil Rights movement didn't just go home after Brown v Board of Education. That was 1954, and the work still isn't done. Bigger changes didn't come until the late 60's.
Keep Calm and Carry.