After the horrific events in California back in January, one name kept popping up that was trying to argue that California’s gun control laws weren’t really that restrictive. That name was UCLA’s Adam Winkler.

Winkler tried to argue that because California’s gun laws aren’t a mirror of laws in the UK, the fact that two mass shootings happened within two days couldn’t be evidence that the gun control wasn’t working.

Now, he’s trying to present gun control as literally the only possible solution in a piece titled, “Even as mass shootings multiply, judges are erasing gun laws.”

Taking a look at that, we see the premise clearly. The only potential solution to what’s happening is gun control and those darn judges upholding the Constitution.

It doesn’t get better in the text, either.

Once again a mass shooting is in the headlines — this time in Nashville, with three children among the six victims. This latest horrific tragedy is prompting renewed calls for gun reform, but what most Americans don’t know is that a different kind of gun revolution is already underway.

Over the past few months, the federal courts have waged an unprecedented attack on U.S. gun safety laws. Spurred by the Supreme Court, judges have declared dozens of mainstream, widely accepted restrictions on firearms unconstitutional.

Even a partial list of the laws struck down or enjoined is startling: bans on possession of firearms by domestic abusers; bans on guns in churches, hospitals and bars; prohibitions on firearms in the hands of people charged with felonies; restrictions on 18-to-20-year-olds carrying weapons; prohibitions on loaded guns in vehicles; and bans on guns with obliterated serial numbers.

This tidal wave of rulings began with a decision by the Supreme Court last year. The justices struck down New York’s 100-year-old restrictions on who could obtain a license to carry a concealed firearm and established a new test for courts to apply in all 2nd Amendment cases. Many modern gun laws have been unable to survive it.

The problem is that Winkler’s attempt to link Nashville with these rulings falls flat due to the fact that absolutely none of this had any impact on what transpired Monday.

As awful as Nashville was, it wasn’t something that spawned off from a lack of gun control unless your only viable endgame is one that is based on the repeal of the Second Amendment entirely.

Which I’m pretty sure Winkler wants.

That’s likely why he’s so opposed to the Bruen decision in the first place. It’s not so much that he thinks it’s actually wrong and more that it prevents the gun control schemes he most wants to see in place.

Yet Winkler also suffers from tunnel vision when it comes to guns and gun control. He doesn’t seem to think there’s literally any other solution to mass shootings, despite the fact that we know the Nashville shooter decided against one potential target because security was too tight.

It’s why I can’t take Winkler’s supposed expertise seriously. He, like those in the media who reach out to him, isn’t an expert. He’s an activist with academia’s trappings.