Second Amendment Foundation Sues Connecticut Over 10-Round Mag Ban

Mossberg MVP Predator
Connecticut bans magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, but the SAF is looking to change that.

The Second Amendment Foundation and the Connecticut Citizens Defense League are suing Connecticut law enforcement officials in federal court over the state’s ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition and the prohibition against loading more than 10 cartridges into so-called “high-capacity magazines.”

“This law does nothing more than penalize law-abiding citizens while criminalizing components of handguns they own that were previously legal,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said in a statement. “This is a text book example of turning honest citizens into criminals by the mere stroke of a pen by the governor.

“Original capacity magazines are not dangerous or unusual,” he continued. “They’re in common use all over the country. But the Connecticut law makes it illegal to use such magazines, which amounts to a deprivation of rights under federal law. Neither SAF nor our partners at CCDL could stand by and allow that to happen.”

Attorney David Jensen is representing two individual plaintiffs, Connecticut residents Susan Ross and Domenic Basile. Both women are legally licensed to carry handguns, but their firearms use magazines holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition. They “justifiably worry that they could be prosecuted for carrying fully-loaded defensive sidearms under the state law,” according to the SAF.

SEE ALSO: Connecticut Gun Owners Protest Proposed Ammo Tax

The suit alleges that the 10-round limit infringes on the plaintiffs’ Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Since magazines holding more than 10 rounds are in “common use for lawful purposes,” firearms holding more than 10 rounds are therefore neither dangerous nor unusual.

In addition, according to the suit, greater ammunition capacity provides a better defense against would-be attackers.

“A person with 15 rounds of ammunition available will be better able to defend himself or herself from a criminal gang, or from a drug-crazed criminal who continues attacking even after being shot, than a person who has only 10 rounds of ammunition available before they must reload their gun,” the suit reads. “A person with a disability or who has been injured by a violent attacker may be unable to reload his or her firearm, and thus, the statutory 10-round magazine loading limit can severely compromise such a person’s ability to defend himself or herself.”

SEE ALSO: Watch: Connecticut Woman Calls Out Beto for His ‘BullSh*t’

Connecticut instituted a magazine ban following the massacre at Sandy Hook elementary. Magazines owned before the law took effect could still be possessed, but users are only allowed to load 10 rounds, even if the magazine can hold more.

Jensen said in a statement that the law “severely limits the right to self-defense, while doing nothing to prevent future tragedies.”

“Nothing is more emblematic of this than the State’s requirement that lawful gun owners load their legally owned magazines to less than their full capacity as a means of supposedly inhibiting future mass murders,” he continued. “We are pleased to help get this ridiculous restriction off the books.”

***Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE!***  

About the author: Jordan Michaels has been reviewing firearm-related products for over six years and enjoying them for much longer. With family in Canada, he’s seen first hand how quickly the right to self-defense can be stripped from law-abiding citizens. He escaped that statist paradise at a young age, married a sixth-generation Texan, and currently lives in Tyler. Got a hot tip? Send him an email at

{ 3 comments… add one }
  • Robert Muxlow March 16, 2020, 12:20 am

    Friends, Americans, Countrymen….the thing we all have to remember is that 2A is NOT about hunting and it’s NOT about self-defense. Therefore, any time we make arguments related to hunting or self-defense we’re playing into their hands. Be smart. We need more than 10 rounds not for hunting or self-defense but we because we have the RIGHT to arm ourselves…and why do we have that right? Because the Founders ensure it would not be infringed! Period.

  • Area52 March 13, 2020, 9:07 pm

    If they can get the case in front of the right judge it might work. However if the SAF wins expect endless appeals. In addition expect the law to remain in place until the appeals are settled.

  • deanbob March 13, 2020, 3:44 pm

    Funny how certain people will use/pervert the constitution to damage this great nation, yet seem betray their self described intelligence when they ignore the simplest 4 words of the second amendment “shall not be infringed.” Webster defines it as “act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on”.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend