One would think that a longtime UCLA law professor would be a pretty smart guy. After all, it takes a good amount of education and experience to reach that position.
But in the case of Adam Winkler, one would be wrong to think that. Winkler has been advocating for more restrictive gun laws for many years. But somehow, he’s so thick that he just recently realized that gun bans and other gun control laws are actually unconstitutional, infringing on the rights of individual American gun owners.
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 9th 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.
Take open carry, which Winkler wraps the story around. He seems to understand the principle, but doesn’t know what to do about it.
“As a result of this decision, Californians may soon be able to apply for a permit to carry a firearm openly—much as they can today apply for a permit to carry one concealed,” Winkler wrote. “Angelenos and San Diegans will be able to carry handguns on their hips as they stroll through town, as if they were looking for a shootout in a Sergio Leone western.”
Tired, overused Wild West B.S. aside, Winkler’s not wrong. What he is wrong about, though, is that the laws he touts that require citizens to apply for a permit to carry a concealed firearm are also unconstitutional under Bruen.
“Regardless of the ultimate outcome here, the 9th Circuit’s ruling illustrates the chaos created by the Bruen case and its requirement that gun laws be consistent with the laws of two centuries ago,” he continued. “This history and tradition test has caused a mess in lower courts across the country, with judges reaching conflicting conclusions about the constitutionality of ghost guns, age restrictions, and even bans on firearms in post offices.
Ultimately, Winkler’s only hope is that somehow the Bruen ruling will be overturned. Likewise, the hope of lawful gun owners is that not only will the Bruen ruling stand the test of time, but even liberal judges will start following it in making their judicial decisions.
