I get that most gun control advocates know jack squat about shooting. David Hogg tried to find a niche for himself a while back by making a big thing out of his going shooting; thus, he couldn't really be anti-gun, but now that no one is buying it, he's seemingly stopped pushing that as hard. He probably knows more about shooting than most of his buddies in the anti-gun camp, and no one is going to be impressed by his knowledge.
Yet it gets hilarious when an attorney for Everytown Law decides to inform us why we're wrong to call things like pistol grips and standard-capacity magazines "cosmetic features."
Gun rights advocates call pistol grips and similar features cosmetic. Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment Litigation at Everytown Law, disagrees. pic.twitter.com/Wc17WW7gwB
— The Center Square (@thecentersquare) September 30, 2026
Oh boy. Where to start?
First, I guess, we'll talk about magazine capacity. To that, I'll point out that detachable magazines just make sense for a number of reasons. I personally miss my old Enfield Jungle Carbine for deer hunting because I could slap the magazine in when I got into the stand, chamber a round, and be good to go, as opposed to climbing into the stand with a loaded rifle. I wish more rifles had detachable magazines.
Adding capacity, though? Well, considering these mass shootings she's referring to all pretty much happened in gun-free zones, I don't see where capacity mattered. If no one can shoot back, the bad guy can reload as often as he'd like.
But what got me was her comments on pistol grips, where she claimed it allowed faster target acquisition.
My answer to that? Bondi Beach.
The attackers there killed 15 people and injured 40. They shot 55 people, and they did it with bolt-action hunting-style rifles. They didn't need a pistol grip to acquire targets.
Pistol grips are just more ergonomic. That's it.
Traditional rifle stocks are made the way they're made not because it was a natural position to shoot, but likely due to the nature of wood.
Wood is a weird material. It's difficult to break across the grain, but it splits easily with the grain. This is why breaking it over your knee can be harder than splitting it, even with a froe instead of an axe.
So, early stocks, if they'd have used a pistol grip, would have broken off due to the shorter grain, which means it would have exerted pressure along the grain and split. Instead, they used a design that took the long grain to take what was originally just a stick to hold a small artillery piece — seriously, they operated like cannons did up through the 18th century, at least — and shaped it into the various rifle forms we know today.
Yet pistol grips first show up on carbines in 1840 with the Delvine Patent rifle. Here, the short-grain issue was solved with a steel plate that reinforced the pistol grip.
As it was a muzzleloader, it wasn't about acquiring targets or anything of the sort.
Why didn't it take off? Again, wood grain directions. The plate helped, but it didn't necessarily stop breakage.
See, the problem here is that Carter is pontificating on shooting and the ease of shooting large numbers of people, but apparently hasn't really spent a lot of time on the range herself. This is unsurprising considering who she works for, but it means that she makes statements about the "use" of cosmetic or ergonomic features that don't impact the use of such a rifle. In the process, she makes herself look like a total knob.
Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their extreme gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun-grabbing schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member