Is the latter actually fighting to uphold it? or just going through the motions and taking a fall? Since there is no Constitutional basis for the AWB, Ashcroft cannot present a viable argument supporting it; Reno, on the other hand, would have presented any obfuscated legalise verbage necessary to confuse, derail, and rationalize away the plantiffs.
Sorry, but your "take" seems like wishful thinking to me. What do you base it on?
The long-used technique of the "Devil's Advocate": believers may designate someone to represent the other side, for the purpose of analyzing the opposition's arguments for weaknesses, to strengthen the believer's arguments, and to present a viable yet ultimately rebuttable argument in court.
Expect Ashcroft to present the pro-AWB position in such a way that all the supporting points are made, yet cannot stand up to anti-AWB (i.e.: pro-RKBA) scrutiny. This way, Metzenbaum & Co.'s arguments are systematically and completely presented and destroyed in high federal court, leaving nothing for AWB supporters to argue with. Contrast that with either Ashcroft just folding and AWB supporters legitimately claiming their arguments were never viably presented (just as we complain about inadequate defense in US vs. Miller), or Reno presenting a strong case of mutated facts and misapplied law (which obfuscates the issue enough that it cannot be adequately rebutted in limited court time).
Of course, another option is Ashcroft actually betraying us via creative legal/factual obfuscation & mumbo-jumbo. Yet another option is that we are in fact wrong and the AWB is indeed Constitutional (though I firmly believe not) and the AWB is ultimately and righteously upheld (highly unlikely). As we are stuck with Ashcroft in this case right now, let us assume he plays Devil's Advocate, hope for the best, read his arguments carefully, and evaluate the results when they come.