Limit Excessive Mag Sizes
House Bill 622 would create a new Article 53D in Chapter 14 of the North Carolina General Statutes to regulate “large-capacity magazines.” The bill defines a large-capacity magazine broadly to include magazines or similar devices capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, as well as certain shotgun magazines capable of holding more than eight shells, with specific exclusions for permanently altered devices, .22 caliber rimfire tubular devices, and tubular magazines in lever-action firearms.
The bill makes it unlawful to manufacture, sell, offer to sell, purchase, transfer, or possess a large-capacity magazine in North Carolina. A first violation would be a Class 2 misdemeanor, a second or subsequent violation a Class 1 misdemeanor, and possession of such a magazine during the commission of a felony would elevate the offense to a Class I felony. The bill also includes exceptions for certain military, government, and out-of-state commercial transfers, and it provides a 180-day grace period after the effective date for people who already lawfully possess such magazines to modify, surrender, or transfer them out of state.
If enacted, the bill would add a new statewide firearms restriction to North Carolina law and create new criminal penalties for conduct involving large-capacity ammunition magazines. It would affect gun owners, firearms retailers, manufacturers, law enforcement, military personnel, and out-of-state transferees, while also imposing compliance obligations on current possessors through the 180-day transition period. The act would take effect December 1, 2025, and apply only to offenses committed on or after that date.
Based on the bill’s introduction and sponsor lineup, the measure appears to be supported by sponsors seeking to reduce access to high-capacity ammunition magazines and to align state law with a more restrictive firearms policy. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no recorded debate or formal vote history in the materials to indicate broader legislative sentiment. The bill’s title and structure suggest a public-safety rationale, but the absence of discussion records limits any deeper assessment of support or opposition.
The likely points of contention are the bill’s restriction on possession itself, the criminal penalties attached to violations, and the scope of the definition of “large-capacity magazine,” which reaches both magazines and certain shotgun feeding devices. Gun rights advocates would likely object to the ban as an infringement on lawful firearm ownership and use, while supporters would likely emphasize violence-prevention and public-safety concerns. The exceptions for military, government, and certain commercial transfers, along with the grandfathering/transition provision, may also be debated as either necessary carveouts or insufficient protections for existing owners and lawful commerce.