The statute requires the gun simply look like a handgun in the xray imager. The 3.7ozs of stainless is for the standard image referred to in the law as a "security exemplar". That could be achieved by other means, as long as they are an essentially permanent feature. All Bushmaster has to do is make their pistol look like a pistol in the ximager. Even if the barrel of that pistol was a lb. of steel, it would not pass the law, because it don't look like a pistol in the imager.
The law is still not permanent. This is a 10 year extension.
"Although this is currently an extreme case, making this stupid law permanent could easily make many future firearms illegal for private citizens to own. "
It may. I just don't see practical, or worthwhile guns being made unavailable.
By doing what, adding non-structural metal? There may not be room. The use of wood and metal in firearms is declining and future designs may not have any. This could someday cause private citizens in the U.S. to be prohibited from owning modern firearms.
The law is still not permanent. This is a 10 year extension.
The Senate version S. 1774 makes it permanent. Are you naive enough to think that they won't pass it in the middle of the night again?
It I just don't see practical, or worthwhile guns being made unavailable.
If you are willing to support the ban of the manufacturer of a class of firearms simply because you don't think they are practical or worthwhile, you are on the wrong side of the fence. While using your page to get to the link to the state page, I noticed that you have a picture of some muzzle loaders there. By your same selfish logic, I should have no problem with banning the sale of black powder (an explosive) since I don't think muzzle loaders are very practical or worthwhile. Terrorists are far more likely to take advantage of that "loophole" than ever use an "insufficiently metallic firearm."