The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Neal Katyal's Glock
The most iconic gun of the 1980s was the Glock. It was popularized in many rap lyrics because of its useful rhyme. Cypress Hill performed a song titled "Hand on my Glock." Bruce Willis, as John McClane, warned about the "Glock 7" in Die Hard 2:
"Luggage? That punk pulled a Glock 7 on me. You know what that is? It's a porcelain gun made in Germany. It doesn't show up on your airport X-ray machines here and it costs more than what you make in a month!"
Of course, there is no Glock 7. Glocks are not made of porcelain, but are made in Austria, and they will show up on airport x-ray machines. But it was still an iconic line.
I would recommend the fascinating book, Glock: The Rise of America's Gun, to learn more about this weapon.
Even three decades later, the Glock still maintains a hold on popular opinion. I find that whenever people who don't actually own a gun want to sound knowledgable, they talk about Glocks.
That background brings me to oral argument today in Wolford v. Lopez. This is an unusual Second Amendment case. In Hawaii, businesses have to affirmatively opt in to allow conceal carry. In other words, a person with a gun can only enter a business that is open to the public if the business posts a sign. I'll write about the legal issue later. Here, I want to opine on the oral argument.
Neal Katyal argued the case on behalf of Hawaii. In years past, Katyal has been the de facto Hawaii Solicitor General. He argued Trump v. Hawaii, the travel ban case.
At two distinct points in the argument, Katyal referred to Glocks.
The first reference came during his prepared opening:
In some places, it's reasonable to assume guns are welcome. In others, it's pretty clear an invitation to shop is not an invitation to bring your Glock.
The second reference came during a page-long response to his former boss, Justice Kagan.
They're not going to realize that someone might have a concealed Glock on them and the like.
These references were completely gratuitous. There are many weapons one can conceal carry. In the first line, Katyal was making a poor attempt at rhyming. Glock rhymes with some words, but not with "shop." In the second line, "Glock" adds nothing.
Earlier this term, I watched Katyal argue the tariff case. I wrote that it "seemed like he was giving rehearsed answers." He also had several prepared attempts at humor that did not land. It turns out that Katyal had invited comedian John Mulaney to the Court that day. According to the Hollywood Reporter, Mulaney and Katyal are working on a TV show together about the Supreme Court:
And there, near the back, was John Mulaney. The comedian and actor, dressed in a sharp suit with a dark blue tie, was listening along as the justices pressed the lawyers on the legality of Trump's tariffs, according to multiple people in the room.
So…why was Mulaney there? The answer, it seems, lies with one of the attorneys litigating the case: Neal Katyal, who was representing businesses challenging the tariffs. Katyal and Mulaney are friends, with the comedian going on the attorney's podcast and Mulaney hosting Katyal on his Netflix talk show Everybody's Live earlier this year.
In fact, Katyal and Mulaney are working on a TV project together. Speaking at the Aspen Ideas Festival earlier this year, Katyal revealed some details on the collaboration.
"I'm actually writing a television show about the Supreme Court, it's kind of a West Wing for the Supreme Court," Katyal said. "I'm writing with John Mulaney and and it'll be out in a couple of years. But part of the idea is to try and use the arts to spur a conversation about what justice is."
Humor seldom works at the Court. Remember, in 2009 NBC was developing a show based on the life of Tom Goldstein, titled Tommy Supreme?
Press reports say the show will be called Tommy Supreme, but Goldstein says that's likely just a working title, according to Washingtonian's Capital Comment Blog.
"It makes no sense, so I'm sure it will change," Goldstein told the blog. "It can't possibly be real."
Variety also had the news, saying the show will be an "inverse House," depicting a likable guy in an unlikable profession. Writers are working on the pilot.
Whatever the writers came up with for that show could not be unreal than Goldstein's reality.
As Biggie said, "Just 'cause I joke and smoke a lot, Don't mean I don't tote the glock."
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
And what does this idiotic post contribute, other than telling us Blackman apparently doesn't like Katyal?
I, for one, welcome Professor Blackman as our new effective-humor-in-the-Supreme-Court-analyzing overlord.
It contributes more than your comment.
It illustrates that the loudest anti-gun voices actually know nothing about guns. The people who want to make policy about firearms don't understand firearms.
FWIW writers are taught that recognisable brand names are more effective in a line than the generic product.
Consider: "there's a guy in a Cadillac weaving all over the place!" with "there's a guy in a luxury sedan weaving all over the place". Replace "Cadillac" with any luxury brand and you'll find it's more effective than "luxury sedan".
Consider, "There's a guy in a car weaving all over the place!"
Are we talking informally? Then this is less ridiculous and clunky than either of your examples.
If we're trying to convey useful details then unless the car was a Cadillac 'luxury sedan' is a more useful description. Indeed, if its not a Cadillac then using the word 'Cadillac' misleads the listener.
Calling every pistol a Glock is just cringe. The only people who do that you need to take seriously are violent criminals. If you're doing it in a professional setting then you're not a serious person who should be taken seriously.
Obviously you're just posting for the sake of disagreement, and have hence missed the point. If you're trying to plant an impression in a listener's or reader's head, you go with the name. You needn't concern yourself with what the gun equivalent of Comic Book Guy might think about it.
Josh has two speeds, bragging and whinging. If he isn't doing one he's doing the other. Shallow and nasty makes him the ideal Trump toady. He should count himself lucky to live in this time.
Vryedni has two speeds, bragging and whinging. If he isn't doing one he's doing the other. Shallow and nasty makes him the ideal TDS victim. He should count himself lucky to live in this time.
I actually like Glocks. They are so consistent. I have Glocks shooting almost everything between .22 LR (target practice) up to 10 mm (bears). Glocks are the only 10 mms, that I know of, that can also safely shoot 40 S&W. Most of my Glocks though are in the 9 mm Luger range.
I've found them to be very reliable.
My CC is a Glock 43X MOS with a red dot.
Coupled with a Shield Arms 15 round magazine and it's an incredibly comfortable carry pistol with lots of pew-pews.
43 with the DeltaPoint Micro.
I know little about guns - is 10mm a particularly unusual calibre? And it must be a fairly impressive load to stop bears (though I would hope only to be used out of defensive necessity).
The FBI adopted and then quickly rejected the 10 mm. So no, not useful.
It's not a commonly used caliber, was designed for Law Enforcement but was seen as too powerful to be used competently, most departments who used it switched to the 40 S&W. FBI went to it after the 1986 Miami Shootout when their Agents carried S&W 357 Magnum Revolvers (Model 13)
Frank
you could say 10mm is a niche caliber. Powerful enough to make it difficult to control, as Molly pointed out.
Its not unusual.
Its pretty big though. It was developed for the FBI in the late 1980's to replace their revolvers for all agents. The problem is it requires a larger-frame gun and has a hecking lot of recoil so it was difficult to shoot well, especially for smaller agents.
.40SW was developed after the FBI went with lower-power 10mm loads - .40SW is just 10mm with 2mm cut from the case.
10mm in full-power loads *is* good for large animal defense. In general, if you only need defense against two-legged predators you'd go with 9mm (more capacity, lighter guns, lower recoil, same terminal effectiveness in people) but if you need protection against large animals then 10mm is a good choice.
Thank you
Glocks are, as much as I hate to admit is, actually really good. If you have to recommend a gun to someone with no experience I would not hesitate to say 'just get a Glock (in 9mm of course;)'.
But to call all pistols 'Glocks' is . . .
Biggie was a Poser, all the talk about Cherry M3's and he couldn't even drive. Should have invested in Bullet Proof glass.
Frank