Estimated reading time: 3 minutes
A proposed federal law would classify many high-powered airguns as firearms under the Gun Control Act. The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms calls the idea an “extremist” overreaction.
Rep. Kevin Mullin, D-Calif., introduced Garrett’s Law after the death of constituent Garrett Edwards. According to Mullin, Edwards was legally prohibited from possessing a firearm but purchased a high-powered airgun online during a mental health crisis. He later died by suicide.
Mullin argues that airguns powerful enough to kill should face the same federal rules as conventional firearms. The proposal has received support from GIFFORDS and March for Our Lives.
What Would Garrett’s Law Cover?
The bill would add qualifying “lethal air guns” to the federal definition of a firearm.
The draft specifically covers:
- .177-caliber airguns firing at least 800 feet per second
- .22-caliber airguns firing at least 500 feet per second
- .25-caliber airguns firing at least 450 feet per second
- Airguns firing any metallic pellet larger than .25 caliber
The attorney general could also designate other airguns as lethal through rulemaking.
Paintball guns that exclusively fire paint-filled projectiles would be excluded. Mullin’s announcement also says nonlethal airsoft guns would remain outside the law.
If enacted, the classification would place covered airguns under ATF jurisdiction. Manufacturers would need federal licenses and would face serialization and recordkeeping requirements. Retail purchases would also become subject to the federal background-check process.
The changes would take effect 850 days after enactment. The attorney general would have one year to issue compliance guidance.
CCRKBA Calls It an Overreaction
CCRKBA Executive Director Andrew Gottlieb said the legislation exploits a personal tragedy to justify nationwide restrictions.
“Airguns are not firearms, they should not be treated like firearms, and people who want to own them should not be treated like criminals,” Gottlieb said.
The organization argues that airguns have long served as an entry point for young shooters learning safe handling and marksmanship. It also contends that the proposal would burden lawful owners while failing to address the mental health problems behind the case.
Gottlieb said Mullin should focus on improving mental health services instead of expanding federal firearm regulations.
“We don’t want to trivialize what Garrett Edwards did, but we don’t want to see his tragedy exploited, either,” he added.
A Much Broader Reach
Garrett’s Law would not cover every BB gun or air-powered replica. However, its velocity thresholds would capture many commonly available pellet rifles.
That could bring a sizable portion of the modern airgun market under the same federal framework governing conventional firearms.
Supporters describe that as closing a dangerous loophole. CCRKBA sees it as another attempt to steadily expand federal gun control beyond firearms using gunpowder.
The bill now faces a long road through Congress, but the disagreement is already clear. The debate is no longer simply about whether powerful airguns can cause fatal injuries. It is whether that justifies treating their manufacturers, sellers and buyers like participants in the traditional firearm market.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
Available on GunsAmerica Now
is a seasoned outdoorsman, lifelong hunter, and the kind of guy who’d rather track whitetails than scroll social media. As an editor for GunsAmerica, he’s got a sharp eye for spotting both solid gear and bad gun laws. Whether he’s deep in the woods or deep in editorial deadlines, Larry brings a no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is approach to firearms, hunting, and the great American tradition of self-reliance. If there’s a hot debate on gun rights or the latest in hunting tech, you can bet Larry’s got an opinion—and it’s probably backed up with both facts and field experience.
Experience:
– Licensed Bowhunter, Hunter, and Trapper – Experienced in ethical hunting and wildlife conservation.
– Concealed Carry Permit Holder (NYS & AZ) – Trained and licensed to carry in multiple states.
– 2A Journalist – Covering firearms legislation, Second Amendment issues, and gun rights for over a decade.
– Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) – Certified to provide emergency medical care in the field.
– Field-Tested Gear Reviewer – Hands-on experience with firearms, optics, and hunting tech.
After that, they would go after bows and slingshots. These people never stop.
They do not expel a projectile through a barrel using explosive energy therefore, they are not firearms – no “fire” involved. Stupid Dummycrats need to learn that words have meanings and you cannot just assign new meanings to them simply because it’s politically convenient for you!
If this proposed law is crafted to help prevent suicides, then by all means ban everything that could possibly be used for such misadventures. For example: Rope, knives, sleeping pills, tall buildings, and vacations to Canada.
Suicide is no joke or to be taken lightly, but a guy kills himself with and air gun and now we need a law restricting them. Well we better start banning bridges because plenty of people jumped off them to kill themselves. What a joke. People who go as far as suicide are going to do it by any means. So if he didn’t have an air gun but used a kitchen knife to cut his wrists do we ban those too?
This a non-story, non-issue, almost click bait. Nothing keeps these looney lawmakers from “introducing” legislation to do anything. It is a mere formality so they can go back and tell their constituents well I tried, it’s all a CYA politically. People introduce crap all the time, the assault weapons ban was re-introduced but still born, probably almost daily there are articles of impeachment drawn up, and have been, the list goes on. An airgun does not meet the statutory definitions of a firearm under the Gun Control Act, period, does not expel a projectile by action of explosive. So you would have to amend the verbiage of the GCA. Even under rule making, there is at least one notable exception of airguns versus firearms in ATFs own regulatory interpretations. I think what people miss here is the legal argument of a “dangerous weapon” as could be defined under relevant state law using evidence to affirm to deny such a contention, versus a firearm. An article need not be a firearm to be a dangerous or deadly weapon. Remember a few years ago when a car veered through a crowd somewhere I think in Wisconsin? No mention of a driver but the car basically, for whatever reason, became a dangerous weapon, but not a firearm.
If air rifles and air pistols are declared to be regulated the same as powder fired firearms, then what about blow guns with darts as ammunition? And what about cross bows and compound, and long bows for that matter? I am a FFL holder and I would hate to begin engaging in background checks for any projectile launcher just based on size of the projectile. How about a marble fired from a slingshot device?
Shocker…another freedom hating, Democrat trying to destroy more of our supposedly constitutionally protected rights. Mullin is a clown who shouldn’t be allowed in politics let alone allowed to write bills. These are not serious people who use logic to decide what to support and what not to, it’s all agenda based.
Sorry komrade Mullin, this is America, not China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, etc but I’m sure those places would happily take you into their country where you clearly share the same values.
This is just another way to erode the Second Amendment Rights, Air rifles and handguns are propelled by CO2 gas canisters. These are not propelled by gun powder and thus, should remain as they were originally made, air guns only.
i noticed the thresholds are such to exclude banana guns…….those seem to get a free pass on all gun laws.
Pop Tart guns need to be added to this law. It’s just common sense in politico world.