Even in this state, when they put the word "type" into the description, it limits it to that manaufacturer:
from Bailey:
With respect to the third phrase, one of the plaintiffs' own
experts, engineer Charles Fagg, was able to identify Auto-Ordnance
Thompson weapons. He also identified many weapons that, in his
opinion, were "like" such weapons. Indeed, the plaintiffs' claim
relies on the proposition that the phrase is facially vague not
because no firearm comes within its core, but because too many
firearms do. Nonetheless, on cross-examination Fagg himself felt
sufficiently certain of the characteristics of an "Auto-Ordnance
Thompson type" firearm that he testified concerning the firing
capabilities of such a weapon. Moreover, even if we could read the
phrase "Auto-Ordnance Thompson type" so broadly as to destroy its
core meaning, we decline to do so. "[W]e read the statute narrowly
in order to save its constitutionality, rather than broadly in
order to destroy it." State v. Indrisano, supra, 228 Conn. at 805,
640 A.2d 986. The state correctly points out that, consistent with
the principle of ejusdem generis, the phrase "Auto-Ordnance
Thompson type" should be interpreted to include only those Auto-
Ordnance Thompson firearms that share characteristics similar to
the other weapons listed in section 53-202a. See Scrapchansky v.
Plainfield, 226 Conn. 446, 455, 627 A.2d 1329 (1993); State v.
Russell, 218 Conn. 273, 278, 588 A.2d 1376 (1991). Our adoption of
this interpretive gloss provides a sufficient core of meaning to
remedy any facial vagueness that might otherwise exist. Cf. State
v. Indrisano, supra, at 805-806, 640 A.2d 986.
PA13-3 has: Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type and still has the Thompson one.
They wanted to cover all AK's but I think that they just limited it to those that Avtomat produced.
Of course, the other provisions would be looked at...