That law only lasted about 11 years.
NFA was passed in 1934. It's still enforce.
GCA was passed in 1968. It's still enforce.
Brady was passed in 1993. It's still enforce.
So you must think that those laws are going away. I would say the chances of that are pretty slim.
On the other hand I would say more gun control, not less, is probably on the way.
Just a guess.
The assault weapon law was time limited because the politicians had to compromise; it had failed to pass on its first attempt to pass congress and Clinton managed to force it through again, and republican turncoat allowed it to pass with the limiting provision. But then, republicans took over congress and even Bill Clinton admitted it was due to the AWB.
The bottom line is we get the govt. we deserve .... or elect. Compromising works only in making the loss in rights "a death of a thousand cuts." Or ....like adding mud to water to get muddy water. There are a boatload of metaphors, some cute, some wise, some cliched, some insipid, but basically there are two factions, a "pro" and an "anti" faction, and for 80 years, they've been doing a little dance around each other, and trying to attract dance partners for political clout.
You seem to say if you won't compromise, you get gun control. Well, the antis want gun control. Compromise only gives them a little ....but it won't stop them, they took a bite in 1933, another in 38, and then again in 1968, and in 1994. Not to mention many other state laws.
Check out a concept called "The Overton Window." It deals with how "normalcy," or the political "middle ground" is gradually shifted --- to the left as it is being used now --- and thus making the new left seem "middle" and "normal." All this to seemingly make future leftward lurches seem smaller.
When you comprehend this concept you realize just why compromise is such a horrible strategy.
There's very little we can do aside from understanding our beliefs and principles, and voting for the best candidate we can find. Or, we can run for office ourselves if we think it's a viable option. There's not likely to be a perfect candidate on our side .... and our opponents get a vote too.
And the representatives we choose will vote in accord to their principles, beliefs, and prevail in accord to their clout, no doubt compromising whatever our beliefs are anyway, but that shouldn't cause us to abandon our principles, beliefs or strategies; there will always be
THE NEXT ELECTION.