Hartford - Gun advocates turned out in force Wednesday to tell legislators what they thought of a proposed law that would ban large-capacity ammunition magazines.

Hearing Room 2C was filled to overflowing by a vociferous crowd that often invoked the Second Amendment in telling the Judiciary Committee they opposed the bill.

Eight other bills were before the committee, including one that would allow homeowners to use deadly force in the event their home was invaded, but the bill that got the most attention was the one that would reduce the number of bullets one can load into a gun to 10, thereby making possession of a magazine holding more than that a Class D felony.

"I've had a lot of law enforcement officers … in the community contact me and state that they have concerns with this taking away their Second Amendment rights," said state Rep. Chris Coutu, R-Norwich. "I've heard that over and over from about a dozen members of the law enforcement community."

Coutu brought up the case of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, who was shot at a public appearance in January. While she and 13 other people were wounded, another six were killed.

"I think this bill really comes down to Representative Giffords of Arizona," he said. "It seems far too often there's a quick reaction to an incident that happened somewhere in the country, and I think this bill is that quick reaction and the bill hasn't been thought out well."

Others who testified were more vehement in their opposition.

"If both I and my family were attacked by multiple people in an invasion of my home, I would want as many shots as possible for defense. Do you remember the Cheshire home invasion?" said Marc Ruby of Hamden.

"The focus should be on the illegal guns and the criminals," Ruby said. "This bill paints as criminals all gun owners who value their Second Amendment rights. If someone is intent on committing a criminal act, it will not matter if he has one 15-round magazine or two 10-round magazines."

Bill Stevens of Newtown began his testimony by reading the Second Amendment of the Constitution, then launched into the story of how his ancestors helped to free the Colonies from "an absolute tyranny."

And he came with props.

"I have here in my hand - don't worry, it isn't loaded - a magazine," he said, raising it in the air to show the committee, "for the lawfully purchased handgun that I own. It holds 16 rounds. Under this proposed legislation … I will become a Class D felon if I don't surrender it to the state. A replacement magazine retails for about $40. Will the state reimburse me?

"Do we ban citizens from attending more than 10 rallies or sending more than 10 letters to the editor as high-capacity exercise of free speech?" he said. "Do we ban beer by the case as high-capacity alcohol possession? And try telling your wife that she's limited to 10 shoes in her closet."

In short, Stevens said, the bill was nothing short of tyranny, "similar to that against which my ancestors fought in the late 1770s."

Not everyone spoke against the bill.

Marty Isaac of Trumbull said he felt that any inconvenience felt by the gun-owning community was outweighed by the public's safety.

"My concern is gun violence. It frightens me. It is not a unique concern," he said. "I believe I speak for a majority of people around the state. What I think often gets lost in these discussions, what needs to be balanced against the right to own weaponry is the right to safety - my personal safety, my family's right to safety and my community's right to safety."

Her family's right to safety was invoked by Brooke Cheney of Harwinton to oppose the bill. She introduced herself as a mom of two small children, a sport shooter and a woman whose husband travels for work often.

In addition to opposing the magazine bill, Cheney said, she supported the bill that would allow homeowners to defend themselves with deadly force if they felt it was necessary.

"I certainly hope that I never have reason to use a gun in my own home," she said. "However, I do want to have the right to defend my life and that of our children, should someone invade our home. In our home we have a plan. The first is to retreat. The second is to barricade the door. And if someone gets through that second door, I'm very confident that they are looking to do us harm."

Cromwell Police Chief Anthony Salvatore and West Hartford Police Chief James Strillacci had problems with the home-invasion bill, arguing that "when we go to search a criminal's house … we don't want to be met with gunfire and have this person claim that he believed he was under attack and was defending himself," Strillacci said.

As to the proposed magazine ban, there were those who made an economic argument against it.

Wayne Hopkins of Wallingford, an employee of O.F. Mossberg, a gun manufacturer based in North Haven, said it would harm his business.

That was an argument with which Coutu concurred.

"I think there has to be something said: Thousands of employees are directly tied to this industry, and if Connecticut has a stand-alone rule that really is only one state, these companies have to design new magazines that only fit for Connecticut, and I don't think that is in line with the governor's objectives, which are Connecticut is open for business," Coutu said.

k.robinson@theday.com