In Depth: Gun-Parts Maker Faces a Decade in Prison Over Tiny Nut

China enforces some of the world’s strictest gun control laws, with criminal penalties that can include life imprisonment even for infractions involving toy gun components[para. 1]. The recent high-profile case of Ma Xiaoqiang illustrates the rigorous legal approach to anything that could be considered a firearm part. Ma and his father, Ma Jian, operate a small hardware factory in Nantong, Jiangsu, supplying metal components that could be used for both toy guns and real firearms, including a particular fastener referred to as an “iron head.” The fate of Ma rests on whether these nuts are legally classified as gun parts or benign hardware[para. 2][para. 3].

The factory serves a customer base that includes both the toy gun industry (notably for water bead guns resembling airsoft guns) and some suppliers under investigation for illegal firearms activities[para. 3]. Ma and his father were detained on June 24, 2022, as part of a multi-province crackdown. While Ma Jian was released without charges, Ma Xiaoqiang faced trial on charges of illegal manufacture and sale of firearm components[para. 4]. The prosecution argued that the iron head nuts qualified as firearm parts, and given the quantity—1,700 out of 2,000 seized nuts classified as such—prosecutors recommended a sentence of over 10 years[para. 6][para. 7].

The trial centered on three main issues: whether the nuts were designed for toy or real guns, if they should legally be considered gun components, and whether Ma acted with criminal intent. Chinese law stipulates that possession of firearm components in substantial quantities constitutes a serious crime—every 30 unmatched parts is counted as a set, and 300 sets triggers enhanced penalties[para. 5][para. 6]. Although Ma’s lawyer argued for acquittal, no verdict was issued at the hearing[para. 7].

Ma’s factory, Keyang Metal Products, often fulfills custom orders for both toy and real gun parts, which Ma claims always complied with regulatory requirements. The hardware sector in Nantong is prolific, with the city producing roughly 80% of the world’s optical gun scopes[para. 10]. Regulatory oversight is strong, with manufacturers frequently summoned by police to clarify rules and attend trainings on firearm regulations[para. 14]. However, the definitions of some gun parts remain ambiguous at the national level, creating uncertainty around items like the iron heads[para. 15][para. 16].

The prosecution’s forensic appraisal identified many of the seized nuts as compatible with AR-15 rifles, deeming them firearm parts, while Ma’s defense countered with a separate appraisal asserting they were not critical components and served only as auxiliary fasteners in some foreign firearms, or as parts for toy guns[para. 23][para. 24][para. 25]. Testimony from both forensic teams and their conflicting results became central to the case, as the definition of what constitutes a firearm part under Chinese law has material consequences[para. 26][para. 27]. Demonstrations in court showed that the nuts did not fit a standard AR-15 barrel as alleged by the prosecution[para. 33].

The investigation’s breadth also highlighted issues with selective prosecution. While Ma’s hardware was supplied to a customer, Ye Wentao, swept up in a separate crackdown, there was no record of Ma selling the specific nuts to Ye; similar ambiguity surrounded other buyers[para. 38][para. 39][para. 40]. Notably, authorities declined to pursue Ma’s largest toy-gun vendor, suggesting awareness that the components were equally applicable to legal toy manufacturing[para. 44][para. 45]. Ma cited notarized WeChat transactions with multiple toy vendors, none of whom faced investigation[para. 47].

Ma’s case illustrates the legal gray areas and harsh risk of operating in China’s tightly regulated hardware supply chain for guns and replicas, where the line between legality and imprisonment can hinge on technical definitions and regulatory interpretation[para. 1][para. 48].