Anti-Gun Professor Really Stepped On It in Recent Op-Ed

Last week, UCLA law professor Adam Winkler wrote an op-ed. Considering that he’s the go-to guy for the media when they need an anti-gun “expert,” it’s not surprising that he got the chance to write one. It’s not his first, nor his last, I’m sure.

But it probably should be.

I took a certain amount of his screed apart last week because, frankly, for someone who is a law professor, it was all kind of stupid.

And there was a lot of stupid there. 

One area I kind of glossed over, though, was something that Mark Chesnut latched onto over at The Truth About Guns.

The realization came to me when I read a January 8 op-ed Winkler wrote for the Los Angeles Times, a bastion of anti-gun pseudo journalism. In the piece, headlined “The Supreme Court made a mess out of gun laws,” Winkler is still whining about the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, along with being frustrated by the recent 9^th Circuit ruling striking down California’s ban on open carry.

And in trying to make his case, he wrote what is, for him, a rare piece of truth.

“If the courts continue to demand 18th century precedents for 21st century reforms, we are heading toward a legal landscape where even the most basic, popular and life-saving regulations are stripped away because they didn’t exist in the era of the musket,” he wrote.

Popularity of regulations aside, Winkler just hit on what was so amazing—and so important—about the Bruen ruling. The second part of the ruling said that if a law directly infringes on someone’s Second Amendment rights, the government must prove that it has a historical precedent back to the founding era. And when actually investigated, most gun control laws do not.

That’s pretty much exactly what he did in that op-ed.

The entire thing, where he’s trying to blame the Supreme Court for messing everything up via Bruen, is really just because it means that everything he wants with regard to gun control is now subject to being completely overturned due to the lack of a historic analog.

For him, this is terrible, but the truth is that even he has to admit that under the current precedent, nothing he wants can survive a constitutional challenge if the courts properly apply Bruen.

He doesn’t have to like it, but he’s admitted it via this passage, and that’s going to be thrown into his face every time he pushes for something and then tries to claim it’s constitutional. He already knows that the Supreme Court, the formal arbiter of constitutionality in this country, has already said otherwise.

So Winkler, whose long and notable history of public comments on guns shows which side of the aisle he’s firmly on, admitted that nothing he wants would survive a trip before the Supreme Court.

It’s all unconstitutional.

Talk about stepping on it in your own op-ed.

Editor’s Note: The mainstream media continues to lie about gun owners and the Second Amendment. 

Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.