BZZZZZZT. Not according to these guys they're not. It has nothing to do with a correct definition of an "assault weapon". If you look closely at their list, you'll see a clause for "anything procured for military use".
Your great-grandfather's trapdoor Springfield is an assault weapon to hear these guys tell it.
The definition of an assault rifle is a compact selective fire rifle of intermediate power.
“Assault weapon” is a political term for a semi automatic firearm with a detachable magazine that has two or more of the following military style features: pistol grip, flash surpressor, folding stock, bayonet mount, barrel shroud, or grenade launcher.
So the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 didn’t even pertain to the AK-47, unless it was just a semi auto version of it. Nor would it pertain to the SKS used in the shootings if hadn’t been a version designed to take a detachable magazine.
You are lost in the weeds on the details.
It is not how you divide up the weapons that is important.
Gun ownership is either a Constitutional right or it is not.
With all new laws you have to ask: How will this stop the CRIMINAL mis-use of weapons.
That language should make for a field day ta SCOTUS. How would they ever reconcile that with the language of the Miller decision?