CT Bill to Ban Convertible Pistols Faces Massive Opposition

Governor Ned Lamont’s proposal to ban the sale of certain pistols capable of conversion into automatic firearms ran into a wall of opposition Wednesday at the state Capitol, where roughly 1,900 pieces of written testimony flooded in against the measure compared to just 50 in support.

The public hearing drew a packed room, with gun rights advocates outnumbering supporters of the bill. Many who backed the measure wore T-shirts bearing logos from Moms Demand Action and CT Against Gun Violence, but they were clearly in the minority on the floor.

The bill targets pistols that “can be readily converted by hand or with a common household tool into a machine gun solely by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter.” Lamont framed the goal plainly at a Monday press conference: pressure gun manufacturers to redesign their firearms so conversion becomes harder.

The measure closely mirrors a law signed last year by California Governor Gavin Newsom banning the sale or transfer of Glock handguns and pistols equipped with a “cruciform trigger bar,” a component that enables automatic fire conversion. The National Rifle Association has sued California over that law, arguing that Glock handguns are “in common use” and therefore protected under the Second Amendment.

Connecticut’s bill drew support from law enforcement. The Connecticut Police Chiefs Association backed the measure, pointing to a rising number of firearms seized by city police departments that had been modified with “switches,” devices that enable semiautomatic pistols to fire automatically. The chiefs wrote that their concern centers on the increased volume of rounds a single person can fire. “Law enforcement is concerned that an increase in rounds fired by an individual increases the likelihood that a member of the public or an officer will be struck by one of those rounds,” the association wrote in testimony.

Critics of the bill pushed back hard on that logic, arguing the legislation sweeps too broadly and punishes lawful gun owners for crimes committed by others.

Matthew McBrien, the owner of Patriotware Holsters LLC, submitted written testimony arguing the bill’s language creates serious problems. “Many semiautomatic pistols share common internal design features. Criminalizing an entire class of firearms because they could theoretically be modified, illegally, places responsibility on manufacturers and lawful owners instead of on those who actually commit crimes,” McBrien wrote.

Members of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, many of whom showed up in person Wednesday, made a pointed argument to reporters outside the hearing room: Glock switches are already illegal under existing law. That raised questions about whether the bill addresses a gap in statute or simply adds redundant restrictions on legal gun ownership.

Most of the written opposition testimony came in anonymously, a pattern that advocates on both sides of the gun debate have seen before when high-profile legislation goes to hearing in Hartford. The sheer volume, nearly 1,900 submissions, signals an organized response from gun rights networks that have become adept at mobilizing members ahead of legislative deadlines.

The bill puts Connecticut alongside a small number of states attempting to regulate firearms based on their conversion potential rather than waiting for the modification to occur. Supporters argue that getting ahead of the problem is precisely the point. If a pistol can be turned into an automatic weapon with a cheap device and no special skill, they say, it already poses risks that current law doesn’t adequately address.

Opponents counter that the framing opens a legal door wide enough to catch almost any semiautomatic firearm, since internal components across many models share design similarities. They argue prosecutors and courts would struggle with vague language, and that manufacturers already operating within federal law would face uncertainty about which products they could even sell in Connecticut.

The bill now moves deeper into the legislative process with significant headwinds. Whether Lamont can build enough momentum in a session already crowded with competing priorities will depend in part on whether the public hearing’s lopsided opposition translates into pressure on committee members, or whether law enforcement backing gives Democrats enough cover to push it forward.