H.R. 10583, titled Garrett's Law, would add a defined category of high-powered air guns to the federal Gun Control Act's definition of a firearm. Rep. Kevin Mullin, a California Democrat, introduced the bill on September 24, 2026. The official status record shows that it was referred the same day to the House Judiciary Committee. That is the full extent of the recorded congressional action as of October 5: the proposal has not passed either chamber and does not change current law.
Which air guns the bill covers
The bill calls the new category a “lethal air gun.” It would cover a weapon that expels a pellet using air or gas pressure when the projectile meets one of four combinations: .177 caliber at a muzzle velocity of at least 800 feet per second, .22 caliber at 500 feet per second, .25 caliber at 450 feet per second, or any metallic pellet above .25 caliber. Those thresholds matter more than the broad label. An air gun below its listed velocity would not qualify under that part of the definition.
One exclusion is written directly into the definition: a weapon that exclusively expels a paint-filled pellet would not be a lethal air gun. The text does not contain a separate categorical exemption using the word “airsoft.” Mullin's describes the proposal as excluding paintball and airsoft guns that are unlikely to cause serious injury, but the operative language instead uses the paint-filled-pellet exclusion, the caliber and velocity thresholds, and an additional rulemaking provision.
That provision would let the attorney general designate another air gun as lethal through rulemaking when it is capable of causing death. The bill does not state a separate caliber, velocity, projectile material, or test protocol for that route. It also does not explain how manufacturers, sellers, or owners would establish whether an unlisted model is “capable of causing death.” Those details would have to emerge through any later rulemaking or agency guidance, and the final scope could not be known from the introduced text alone.
What federal classification would do
H.R. 10583 would make a covered air gun a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3), rather than establishing a stand-alone consumer-product rule. Mullin's office says that change would bring covered products under Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives oversight and apply background-check and serialization requirements. For manufacturers and sellers, the practical issue is therefore not merely a new label. Businesses handling covered models would need to determine which products cross the statutory thresholds and prepare for the federal licensing, marking, recordkeeping, and transfer framework that follows firearm classification.
The proposal includes a long transition rather than an immediate start. Its classification amendment would take effect 850 days after enactment. Within 365 days after enactment, the attorney general would have to publish guidance for lethal-air-gun manufacturers seeking federal firearms licenses. The bill specifically directs that guidance to cover the application process and compliance with licensee requirements, including serialization and recordkeeping. It does not provide the guidance itself, create a model-by-model list, or appropriate a stated amount for implementation.
For owners, nothing in the introduced bill requires action today. If it were enacted in its present form, however, a model that meets the definition would become a Gun Control Act firearm on the delayed effective date. The text contains no express grandfather clause for covered air guns acquired before that date. It also does not create a separate registration system in the bill. The consequences would come from placing those products inside the existing federal firearm definition, so prohibited-person rules and regulated commercial transfers would become material for covered models.
Mullin's office says the bill was prompted by the death of constituent Garrett Edwards, who was legally prohibited from possessing a firearm but purchased a high-powered air gun online and died by suicide. The release identifies GIFFORDS and March for Our Lives as endorsers. Those statements explain the sponsor's rationale, but they do not alter the bill's procedural posture or supply the technical standards missing from the text. The legislation is still a proposal before one House committee.
The next procedural step
The next meaningful milestone is action by the House Judiciary Committee, such as a hearing, markup, or report. No date for any of those steps appears in the official status record. If the committee does not advance H.R. 10583, the proposal will not reach a House vote in its current path. If Congress later changes the thresholds, exclusions, attorney-general authority, or effective dates, owners and businesses would need to read the amended language rather than rely on the version introduced September 24.
About the Author
Nick Sawinyh - Nick Sawinyh is a father, husband, hobby farmer, and gun enthusiast from Kentucky. He founded GunsNation and writes most of what appears on this blog.
