Gun Prohibtionist’s Power Grab Exploits Rare Airgun Tragedy for Political Points
“Modern airguns can be powerful enough to cause serious injury or death, yet face far fewer safeguards than traditional firearms simply because they use compressed air instead of gunpowder,” a September 25 press release by Democrat Rep. Kevin Mullin argues. “To close this dangerous gap[he] introduced Garrett’s Law today after one of his constituents lost her son to suicide involving a high-powered airgun.”
“Garrett’s Law… would designate lethal airguns as firearms under the purview of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives,” the release explains. “This would ensure that they receive the same common-sense gun safety protections as traditional firearms, such as background check and serialization requirements.”
The effort has the backing of GIFFORDS, which advocates to “treat non-powder guns like the potentially lethal weapons they are,” and of March for Our Lives.
The bill proposes to amend Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, to include “any lethal air gun,” defined as:
“[A]ny weapon (other than a weapon that exclusively expels a paint-filled pellet) that expels a pellet through the force of air or gas pressure if that projectile can be one of the following calibers and feet per second, or if the weapon is otherwise designated as a lethal air gun by the Attorney General, through rulemaking, as capable of causing death: (A) A .177 caliber pellet expelled at a muzzle velocity of not less than 800 feet per second. (B) A .22 caliber pellet expelled at a muzzle velocity of not less than 500 feet per second. (C) A .25 caliber pellet expelled at a muzzle velocity of not less than 450 feet per second. (D) Any metallic pellet above .25 caliber.”
That leaves a lot of room for any future Democrat AG to expand things. A simple change that comes to mind would be to make the benchmark “capable of causing injury” (“You’ll shoot your eye out, kid!”), which would bring Daisys and Red Ryders into the fold and could further be exploited to enact bans without “grandfathering.” Note the Democrat-controlled states of New Jersey and Rhode Island classify non-powder pellet and BB guns as firearms, with attendant controls.
Because he’s in a safe district and can do and say whatever he wants without fear of a Republican taking his seat, what’s prompting Mullin to act on this now is fair to speculate on. By his press release saying, “One of his constituents,” the gun prohibitionist mantra “If it saves one life” comes to mind, which in turn merits determining how severe is the problem to warrant a major change to federal gun laws.
The danger can’t be quantified because there is no database that tracks total air gun fatalities or suicides. What can be gleaned suggests they represent a minute fraction of overall statistics.
From a 2019 National Institutes of Health/National Library of Medicine abstract:
“Presented is a rare case of a modern, high-powered air weapon used in a homicide. A literature search yielded reports of only three previous murders by air weapon in the United States…”
Another NIH study from the same year concludes, “One person each year dies from an air powered weapon injury in the United Kingdom.”
A more recent 2025 article in The Atlantic Journal of Medical Science and Research cites the case of a 50-year-old man who died as a result of multiple air rifle injuries. Autopsy revealed seven pellet wounds, most likely caused by five shots.” That he could just as easily been clubbed is left unsaid.
Preventable tragedies, no doubt, but hardly through legislation to be imposed and enforced on all. Case in point is the man the proposed law is named after, who, per Mullin’s presser, “struggled with mental health during the pandemic and was prohibited from possessing a firearm by law. Yet, sadly, when his condition worsened, Garrett legally purchased a lethal airgun online and used it to take his own life.”
It’s curious how the political left obsesses over suicide when it’s done with a gun, but champions it when other means are used. In fact, there are more state-assisted deaths in lower-population Canada than homicides with firearms in the U.S.
Unsurprisingly, the man’s mother is all in on new restrictions on everyone else while acknowledging “the countless efforts made by his community.” In other words, the self-destructive aberrant behavior her son had manifested from his “late onset psychosis” were known to her and to others for some time, and yet evidently, he had access to all kinds of potentially lethal instruments, not just an air rifle.
A truism is that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian. After all, the three greatest mass murders in this country were ostensibly committed with box cutters, fertilizer, and matches. How much more does it make sense to restrict those than it does air guns, and yet proposing to do so would rightly be met with well-earned derision for being unworkable, offensive to freedom, and ridiculous.
In his case, it’s a pretty sure thing that perennial gun-grabber Mullin is just doing this as an “In your face!” to gun owners for attention, and for approval from those ignorant enough to vote for him. Fortunately, the GovTrack federal legislation website prognosis says there’s a “1% chance of being enacted,” which means the bill is going nowhere – for now.
Let enough gun owners stay home so that Republicans lose the midterms and lose again in ’28, and that will change.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
