Lethal Air Guns Classified as Firearms

Summary#

Garrett’s Law would amend chapter 44 of title 18 of the United States Code, including its definition of “firearm.” Its stated goal is to classify certain air guns as firearms. It has been introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee; it is not law, and passage is uncertain.

  • The bill defines a “lethal air gun” as an air- or gas-powered pellet weapon meeting listed caliber and speed thresholds, or one the Attorney General designates by rule as capable of causing death. It excludes weapons that exclusively expel paint-filled pellets.
  • The bill adds lethal air guns to the federal firearm definition. Other chapter 44 requirements may then apply, but the supplied materials do not include the full current law needed to verify the exact effects.
  • The Attorney General must publish guidance for manufacturers on becoming federal firearms licensees and complying with licensee requirements, including serialization and recordkeeping.
  • The changes would take effect 850 days after enactment. The guidance must be published within 365 days after enactment.

What it means for you#

  • Manufacturers: The Attorney General must provide guidance on applying for federal firearms licenses and meeting licensee requirements. The bill does not set out the application steps or say which manufacturers would qualify.
  • Owners, buyers and sellers: If an air gun meets the bill’s definition, it would be classified as a firearm under chapter 44. The exact effects on these groups depend on other chapter 44 rules, which are not included in the supplied materials.
  • People who use air guns: The bill does not classify every air gun as a firearm. It uses specific pellet caliber and speed thresholds, includes a route for the Attorney General to designate other guns by rule, and excludes guns that exclusively expel paint-filled pellets.
  • General public: The bill itself does not expressly create a ban, a tax, or a requirement for owners to surrender air guns. Whether existing firearm rules would apply to particular people or guns needs to be checked against the full current law.

Money#

No publicly available information on cost.

  • The bill requires the Attorney General to publish guidance, but the materials give no cost or staffing estimate.
  • No fees, fines, appropriations, or other spending are specified in the supplied bill text.

What is unclear#

  • The supplied materials do not include the full current text of chapter 44, so the exact rules that would apply to manufacturers, sellers, buyers, or owners could not be verified.
  • The Attorney General may designate other air guns as lethal if they are capable of causing death. The bill does not explain how that judgment would be made.
  • The bill does not set out how manufacturers apply for licenses, how long applications take, or what happens to existing products or records when the changes take effect.
  • The bill does not say whether or how existing federal or state rules would interact with the new definition.

Case for#

  • The bill sets measurable caliber and speed thresholds for including certain air guns in the federal firearm definition.
  • A possible argument for the bill is that the Attorney General could address air guns not covered by those thresholds if the agency determines through rulemaking that they can cause death.
  • The required guidance could help manufacturers understand federal licensing, serialization and recordkeeping requirements before the change takes effect.

Case against#

  • The Attorney General’s authority to add other air guns is broad: the bill does not specify how “capable of causing death” should be assessed.
  • Classification could bring manufacturers and other people within existing firearm rules, but the bill does not explain the full requirements or their practical effects.
  • The bill gives no cost estimate for the required guidance or for any resulting licensing and compliance work.