Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Firearms Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gun-rights and gun-safety witnesses clash over magazine limits and ammo sales at Public Safety hearing
Summary
Supporters told lawmakers House Bill 70 52 should raise Connecticut’s 10‑round magazine cap to align with common factory capacities and ease range operations; opponents said lowering restrictions would weaken public safety and urged retention of the existing law.
The Public Safety and Security Committee heard sharply divided testimony on House Bill 70 52, which would change Connecticut’s definition of a large‑capacity magazine and loosen certain restrictions on ammunition sales.
Supporters of the bill, including the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and hunting advocates, argued the 10‑round limit is arbitrary, puts lawful Connecticut owners at a disadvantage compared with other states and can hamper recreational shooters and range operators. Matthew Strasser of the CCDL said the magazine definition is not a long‑standing industry standard and urged lawmakers to raise the limit to 15 rounds.
Opponents urged the committee to retain current limits on magazine capacity and tighter controls on ammunition, saying capacity limits reduce risks in mass shootings and that the state’s historic restrictions contributed to lower gun‑death rates. Jonathan Peroli, speaking for himself, urged lawmakers to oppose HB 70 52 and warned that loosening restrictions would reduce public safety.
Technical and implementation questions
Witnesses discussed practical issues that affect residents and gun ranges: how to make out‑of‑state firearm transfers compliant, whether factory magazines sold outside Connecticut must be modified to hold only 10 rounds, and whether conversion devices that reduce capacity (sometimes called plugs or 'doohickeys' in testimony) create reliability problems. Retailers and sportsmen said current rules impede on‑site ammunition sales at ranges and deter community shooting sports participation.
Law enforcement and fiscal considerations
Representatives from the state police (writing to the record) noted that changing the statutory definition could increase workload to reconcile registrations of pre‑existing magazines and suggested administrative processes would need to be updated. Committee members asked about the practical effects for licensed firearm dealers, ranges and law enforcement tracking and enforcement.
Ending
Committee members heard dozens of public comments and written testimony for both sides; no formal committee action occurred. The debate highlighted a continuing split between advocates for looser restrictions to accommodate lawful owners and safety proponents who say limits remain an important public‑safety tool.
