On Friday afternoon's CNN Newsroom with Brooke Baldwin, just when it seemed like CNN legal analyst Philip Holloway was about to make a conservative case in favor people getting concealed carry permits to protect themselves in public places, it turned into a case of "Do as I say, not as I do," as he ended up warning that "it's not for everybody," and that too many people in a theater with concealed weapons could make things worse.
Shortly after 3:30 p.m., during a discussion of the Lafayette theater shooting, host Baldwin brought up Holloway's own tendency to carry firearms. Baldwin: "As far as firearms in movie theaters, you are there in Georgia, and so you do -- I don't know if it's all the time or on occasion-"
Smiling, the CNN legal analyst jumped in: "You never know."
Baldwin finished: "-you go to the movies with your firearm."
Holloway -- a former prosecutor and former police officer -- replied: "One will never know, but that's correct. Sometimes I do."
Appearing perplexed, the CNN anchor followed up: "And so do you -- why do you do that?"
The legal analyst sounded like he was making a case in favor of people getting concealed carry permits as he began:
Well, to me, it's a matter of personal security, personal safety. I believe that my personal safety is my own personal responsibility. If i have a right to live, I have a right to protect my life. I've been in and around the criminal justice system since I was a deputy sheriff when I was 18 years old. I started shooting guns when I was nine or ten years old. So to me they're something that's a -- they're comfortable. It's a tool that is an option in the event of a threat posed like this guy went into the movie theater last night.
But he then warned against the scenario of there being many people with guns in a public place:
It's not for everybody. I'm not suggesting that everybody should go out and buy a gun and take it to the movies with them to the movies every time because active shooter situations are very, very dangerous. And if you have 15 or 20 people in a movie theater who are carrying a concealed weapon and they don't know where the gunfire is coming from, who knows what could happen? That could be an absolute disaster because in an active shooter situation, the police officers are trained that just because somebody has a gun and they're in plain clothes, they may not be the bad guy.
As the two went on to discuss the option of putting metal detectors in movie theaters, Holloway seemed to shift back toward an almost conservative argument again as he recalled that criminals can find ways around metal detectors and ignore rules against bringing guns into public places:
BROOKE BALDWIN: Do you think -- just quickly, final question -- do you think when we talk about soft targets -- sporting events, movie theaters, obviously we're watching this trial play out in Aurora, Colorado -- should we be walking through metal detectors? I mean, should things change, sadly?
PHILIP HOLLOWAY: Well, of course, there's really no good answer to that question because, you know, security can be as simple as a police officer posted at the front door, off duty, maybe working a second job. We could have metal detectors. At some point, there's a cost-benefit analysis. You and I are both right now sitting in very secure buildings that are not soft targets. We have armed guards here. But, you know, when you're out in public? Who knows? Who knows what's around? Just because there's a sign on the door that says "No Guns Allowed," that's not going to stop somebody from walking in.and opening fire because, by definition, criminals, Brooke, as you know, do not follow the law.
BALDWIN: All right, well, a metal detector may not either. Phillip Holloway, thank you.
HOLLOWAY: James Holmes snuck it in the back door.
BALDWIN: He did, sadly. Thank you.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Holloway contacted NewsBusters and felt the headline misinterpreted what he said. Here is most of his response, which he urged us to share:
I am not a journalist and I give opinions only - and those opinions are mine and mine alone. I do not get into politics in the media but I do talk about law and the 2nd Amendment is law. I do not approach this from a concervative [sic] or liberal perspective but rather from a practical one based on my own real world training, education, and experience.The title of your piece alleges that I advise other people not to take firearms into theaters. I never said that. What I DID say is "it's not for everybody" -- and I stand by that. Guns are not for everybody - some people are afraid of guns and some people are not responsible enough to properly train themselves in the proper use of firearms while others may be mentally unstable or be convicted felons. It is an individual choice that each of us has to make. There is no bigger supporter of the 2nd Amendment than I am so to suggest that I take a "do as I say not as I do" position on gun rights is ridiculous. I have publicly supported anyone who can lawfully do so to arm themselves if they desire. Just yesterday I was accused by a different website of taking a liberal position on gun rights because I stated that I didn't have any problem with armed citizens in movie theaters.My position is based on no political ideals but rather from a public safety perspective - shooting at an unidentified target is both reckless and irresponsible - as is shooting into a crowd because bullets have a tendancy to pass through their initial target and into secondary targets which might be a child or other innocent third party. This is precisely how police train for active shooter scenarios and the brutal truth is that there is no good solution in many instances. Sometimes a gun will stop the situation and sometimes it is useless. The harsh reality is that an actiive shooter situation - particularly in the unique environment of a dark theater with panicked people running for their lives - is beyond the capablilties of the average permit holder to deal with so sometimes it is better to keep the gun holstered.
