Had my meeting. As usual there was some good discussion. He confirmed what others have said, that the Legislature is more than reluctant to take up an issue when there is a pending court case. Contrary to what some have said, he is interested in possible mechanical differences that could be used to identify what is or isn't an AW. Before you all over react, lets look at the situation a little deeper.
For the sake or discussion lets focus on the AR-15. Working from my poor memory and some 2nd and 3rd hand information, there are some design differences between the original "Colt AR-15" as it existed in 1994 and the current AR platform. And that the original "Colt AR-15" could be converted to full-auto (M16) by simply installing the M-16 parts (no machining or drilling required). And that it was this ease of conversion that got the "Colt AR-15" on the list of AWs. Assuming this is correct, is there anyone out there that has, or can find, any gov documents (i.e. Congressional discussion, ATF, FBI, etc.) that back up this as the reason it was specifically named?
This would also apply to the other specifically named firearms, but my focus for now is the "Colt AR-15"
What I'm trying to establish is that the specifically named guns were put on the list because, at that time (1994), they were either; only manufactured as full-auto/select-fire, or that they could be converted to full-auto/select-fire using parts manufactured for a different firearm without the need to alter any of the parts by machining or drilling.
It doesn't matter what may or may not be possible today, all that matters is what the situation was in 1994. And being able to show that it was something other than being "scary black" that got them on the list.