The M1A is an interesting example since other than having a detachable mag, it doesn't have a pistol grip or telescoping stock and does not rank any higher on the "OMG SCARY" scale than most any "hunting" rifle to the layperson.
It would just be a matter of time before it was amended.
They already started to treat the mini-14 as an 'Assault Weapon' after some years of the last federal AWB being in place and were looking to get rid of it.
I believe some locations started to include it, like the restrictions in Cook County IL.
It became a popular .223 rifle with detachable magazine during the AWB, and so became the next target.
Had the AWB not sunset it would have been amended to include those types of things that had replaced what they were targeting.
They would certainly be back for the M1A if they passed something like this. With all the same arguments they can use for the AR-15. They can say all the things they do about why citizens shouldn't have weapons of war, how the M16/AR15 is meant for the battlefield etc The M1A is after all to the M14 as the AR15 is to the M16.
Some of these definitions are also pretty broad. They say all AR rifles, and then they give many examples of what they consider an AR rifle, including several things that are not AR rifles.
They also seem to ban entire companies.
All thompson rifles? All DPMS 'Tactical' rifles?
So they can't even make a compliant model and are banned by brand name? Or just those models that exist prior to the legislation?
It would be a real mess.
All AR and AK types would seem to give a discretionary power to some authority, presumably ending up with the ATF to determine whether something was or was not an AR or AK.