Most Americans learn the word firearm the same way they learn the word speech. We assume we know what it means until the law forces us to define it.
That definitional pressure is back, this time aimed at a category many people file under “kid stuff” or “backyard plinking”: BB guns and pellet guns. U.S. Rep. Kevin Mullin has introduced legislation that would treat certain “high-powered, lethal airguns” as firearms under federal law. Mullin has framed it as a way to close what he calls “a dangerous gap.”
The policy question is not whether airguns can be dangerous. They can be. The question is what changes when Congress decides some airguns should be regulated under the same federal framework that applies to firearms.
Join the Discussion
The proposal
Mullin’s bill, known as Garrett’s Law, would redefine BB and pellet guns as firearms for federal purposes. If the redefinition were adopted, it would require BB and pellet gun buyers to undergo the same background checks that prospective buyers of AR-15s, 9mm pistols, and other firearms are subject to now.
One practical effect is straightforward: a transaction that currently can occur without a firearm background check would, for covered airguns, require the same kind of check used for commonly purchased firearms today.
Daisy BB Guns summarized what it believes the proposal would cover. In an X post, the company wrote, “[This bill] would include guns like the Daisy 880. Their goal is to eventually include all airguns. If passed it will treat airguns producing ‘high velocity’ as firearms.” The post added that the bill “would add all airguns that produce 800 or more feet per second velocities in .177 caliber, and all pellets over .25 caliber.”
Why it is being pushed
Mullin’s office tied the legislation to a constituent death involving Garrett Edwards.
In a press release, Mullin’s office described the current lack of background checks for BB and pellet guns as a “loophole,” and said Edwards “struggled with mental health during the pandemic and was prohibited from possessing a firearm by law.” The press release continues: “Yet, sadly, when his condition worsened, Garrett legally purchased a lethal airgun online and used it to take his own life.”
In that framing, the bill is aimed at closing the gap between being barred from firearm possession and still being able to buy certain high-powered airguns through ordinary commerce.
What changes if reclassified
In simple terms, the change is about which purchase rules apply. If covered BB and pellet guns are treated as firearms, buyers would be pushed into the same background-check process used for other firearms.
This proposal does not just argue that airguns can be lethal. It tries to address access by applying an existing federal approach, rather than creating a separate category with its own rules.
Rights and definitions
The Second Amendment does not contain a list of covered technologies. It protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” That simplicity is part of its power and part of its permanent friction with regulation.
Mullin’s approach tries to resolve a policy problem by collapsing categories. Instead of building a brand-new regulatory regime for certain airguns, it proposes moving them into the existing firearm framework.
Whatever one thinks of that move, the mechanism is clear: shift the legal definition, then apply the background-check structure already used for firearms.
Support and pushback
Supporters describe the bill as a way to add baseline safety requirements to products that can be lethal.
GIFFORDS executive director Emma Brown praised the proposal, saying, “We’re glad to see Rep. Mullin introducing this legislation to create basic guardrails for these previously unregulated weapons, and we urge Congress to swiftly pass it.”
March for Our Lives has endorsed the bill as well.
On the other side, Daisy BB Guns signaled opposition in its X post by warning about how broadly the redefinition could reach, including its statement: “Their goal is to eventually include all airguns.”
The question at the center
Garrett’s Law is built around a specific claim about a specific gap: people who are prohibited from possessing a firearm by law can still legally buy certain lethal airguns without a background check.
The larger debate it raises is about line-drawing. When lawmakers redefine a category, the practical impact depends on what falls on each side of that line, and what set of rules automatically follows.