LOL Yes you ARE confused. This is exactly want I suspected and was waiting to see if this is what you really thought. There is no subsection (a) in the current 53-202a!!! Note the explicit use of low case (a) NOT an upper case (A) by 53-202m which is further backed up by the appellate court opinion(s) use of the same lower case (a). You are choosing to conflate a lower case "(a)" with upper case "(A)". Not even the appellate court does that. To top it off you what you are calling "subsection (A) is not a subsection as used. It is subdivision (A) of subdivision (1).

Look, don't take my opinion. Take OLR's. It is because a reordering was done by PA 13-3 that the subdivision (a) and subdivision (3) or (4) of subsection (a) no longer exist in 53-202a.

PA 13-3 expanded the definition of assault weapon and reordered various sections and subdivisions in the assault weapons statutes. In doing so, it eliminated subdivision (3), which contained the two-feature test, and subdivision (4), which tied assault weapons parts to the two-feature test. But it retained the CGS § 53-202m exemption, which referenced these subdivisions. Thus, the status of the pre-1994 weapons previously referenced in these subdivisions was unclear.

Because of this issue the legislature went in and put a specific date of January 1, 2013 into the 53-202m statute via PA 13-220 so the lower cased subdivision (a) in 53-202m works and makes logical sense. Again OLR states:

PA 13-220 eliminated the ambiguity created by PA 13-3. The law, as amended by PA 13-220, continues to exempt the pre-1994 referenced assault weapons from the transfer and registration requirements that apply to registered assault weapons.