This may be interesting / useful for some here to see:

Below is an excerpt from a CT case where the court comments on the "type" designations in the CT ban. In searching, I wasn't able to find anything expressly articulating the narrow interpretation of those listed weapons NOT followed by "type".

Nor did I find anywhere in the CT cases, a reference to the 53-202m that contains our coveted, non-specified pre-ban exception for firearms manufactured prior to September 13, 1994. Based on this, I am under the impression that the issue has never been litigated in court.

I may have missed it if explained earlier in this thread, though does anyone know of an official interpretation / application of 53-202m or anything that explains the narrow statutory effect of the named firearms in 52-202a NOT followed by "type"?


_____________________________
Appellate Court of Connecticut.
STATE of Connecticut
v.
Robert KALMAN.
No. 24788.
Argued Oct. 12, 2005.
Decided Jan. 10, 2006.

. . .

After designating all selective fire weapons as assault weapons, the legislature listed a number of specific
semiautomatic weapons as assault weapons. Only three of the semiautomatic weapons specified in § 53-202a
have the word “type” after the name. The word “type” is a general designation following the name of a very spe-
cific automatic weapon. “[W]here a particular enumeration is followed by general descriptive words, the latter
will be understood as limited in their scope to ... things of the same general kind or character as those specified
in the particular enumeration.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Eastern Connecticut Cable Television, Inc.
v. Montville, 180 Conn. 409, 413, 429 A.2d 905 (1980).

The word “type” is not defined in the assault weapons statutes. “[W]here a statute does not define a term, it
is appropriate to look to the common understanding of the term as expressed in a dictionary.” (Internal quota-
tion marks omitted.) State v. Boyd, supra, 272 Conn. at 79 n. 5, 861 A.2d 1155. According to the American Her-
itage Dictionary of the English Language (New College Ed.1981), the word “type” is defined as: “1. A group of persons or things sharing common traits or characteristics that distinguish them as an identifiable group or class;
a kind; category.”

Applying the rules of statutory construction, we conclude that the statutory term “Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47
type” is clear and unambiguous. The only logical interpretation is one that encompasses semiautomatic
weapons modeled after an AK-47. That definition would include those semiautomatic weapons
that share common characteristics of the AK-47. That conclusion comports with the common and ordinary
meaning of the word “type” and the rule of ejusdem generis. See Eastern Connecticut Cable Television, Inc. v.
Montville, supra, 180 Conn. at 413, 429 A.2d 905.

. . .
_____________________________

Thanks CTBuilder - got what you mean and agree - just wondering now for sake of reference and peace of mind if this has ever been tested somewhere or verified by the state(i.e. like with the DPS confirmation that AK-74's are GTG, which I'm also looking for...).

If I could find that I would bring a copy with me along with the statute in case I were ever challenged by an overzealous officer at the range. I get the sense there are a lot of LE's in state that think "those weapons" are illegal in general.

Yup, here you go:

Question: I have The option to buy a pre ban never assembled eagle arms lower at a good price.Can this be assembled into a pre ban rifle here in ct.I here a lot of talk about it had to be a assembled rifle before the ban.But that is not what i am interpreting in ct. law.

Thanks that is what I wanted to hear.

Certificate of possession only applies to the weapons banned by name or select fire. Anything else that was manufactured before the cut-off date (including stripped lowers) is grandfathered in as preban.

Did you try calling Bushmaster?

Thanks, I sent a email to Bushmaster requesting the manufacture date.

One more question, in addition to being manufactured prior to 9/13/94, did it have to leave Bushmaster's factory prior to 9/13/94?

Thanks for info.

OK, this may have cropped up before, but I'll take the "No such thing as a stupid question" hit and maybe add something to the discussion.
Obviously relating to Connecticut residents, I have heard/seen chats about not owning pre-ban and post-ban "assault weapon" pieces.
Let's say AR-15. If I have a complete pre-ban Eagle Arms and a complete post-ban Stag, would that not put me in violation as I can put
the pre-ban upper with FH and BL with the post-ban lower in about 5 minutes, making an illegal AW.

Of course, this only counts if you do something bad enough to get a search warrant against you, but you still have all the makings?

If you sell the preban lower, but not the upper with flash hider and bayonet lug, you are screwed - but how about complete sets?
I am sure from other topics here that CT residents have one (or some) of each (pre- & post-).
Clarification?

I am all in for obeying the law but. What a bunch of Stupid Political Democrap Bullshit. All these bans on our guns is not going to solve a damn thing. Next thing you know my kid will not be able to have a BB gun because he"ll shoot your eye out kid? WTF? Again SPDB!