I'm far from optimistic on the train that's a comin' but I'm seeing a number of things that might be exploitable this time through.
In 1994 the public's confusion between EBRs and NFA-EBRs was profound. It's a little better now. When some MSM outlet confuses the issue the blogosphere descends with a vengeance. Methinks a "shoulder thing that goes up" faux pas would have passed without a ripple in 1993. Not so anymore.
I have no actual numbers but if memory serves, the NRA went from over 4 million to just over 3 million during the last 8 years - folks get comfortable. This decline has not gone unnoticed:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/nra-misplaces-a-million-m_b_98429.html
A new AWB would again spike membership. This had a discomforting effect on some representatives last time that they may not wish to repeat.
The Blaser R93 folks seem less inclined to throw the Remington R25 folks under the bus this time. We seem to be marginally less divided.
There didn't appear to be much interest in EBRs in 1992. A lot of the interest was manufactured by congress and, though common sense and short term memory isn't really their long suit, some may wish not to, once again, get "EBR salesman of the decade" awards. (It may already be too late to avoid this).
Whoever gets the credit, EBRs are something in 2009 that they could not aspire to in 2004:
In Common Use. Everybody and his brother is making EBRs. If camo counts, even Remington has R15s and R25s in the catalog. The Supreme Court has simultaneously stated that certain classes of arms could be banned while giving protected status to those In Common Use. There were no worries whatsoever regarding constitutional muster in 1994. There probably still isn't but there may be some (perhaps only one or two) in congress that don't want to burn a fair portion of their political capital on something that might get ruled unconstitutional.
Were I a grabber, I'm not sure I'd want to take the chance on an AWB getting ruled unconstitutional - it'd be a bigger setback than Heller. Then again, I'm more circumspect than the average grabber.
I'm curious as to how a new magazine capacity limit might be administered. We already have tens of thousands, possibly more, of pistol magazines clearly marked "For Military and Police Use Only" which happen to be totally legal. How will the new ones be marked - "For Military and Police Use Only - And This Time We Mean it - 2009"? The devil is in the details.
Lastly, repeal is more difficult than sunset but not impossible. It is especially not impossible if congress and the executive branch conspire to push NRA's numbers over 5 million.
The last one didn't work to reduce crime. While such irritating little factoids are unlikely to trip up the faithful, they do serve to erode popular support.
I'm seeing a big difference in popular support. There's less of it now than before.
I agree with the poster that views congress as the dog that needs watched. Despite any inherent stupidity on the part of politicians I still find the theory that the transition team will push it to require a greater than average number of neural mis-fires. It would penalize directly those gun owners that went against the "party line" to vote that transition team into their current position and directly benefit the group they intend to slap by increasing membership by 50% or better. The NRA stands to benefit greatly (financially) by a run up to an AWB and it seems near incomprehensible that the new droids don't know that. The moonbats have to be given something but it's hard to picture the alternatives being worse in re: expenditure of political capital for dubious if not downright inverted, gain.