Jacksonville.com:

Count Jacksonville Sheriff Mike Williams among the overwhelming majority of county sheriffs who said they oppose a measure that would allow concealed carry permit holders to openly carry firearms in Florida.

The Florida Sheriffs Association provided results of an email vote on the issue, as reported by the News Service of Florida, that resulted in 47 sheriffs saying they oppose the proposal, 10 saying they support it, five abstaining from a vote and five couldn’t be reached.

A spokeswoman for Williams confirmed today that he voted with the majority.

A majority of the Florida Sheriffs Association opposes measures (SB 300 and HB 163) that would allow people with concealed-weapons licenses to openly carry guns. In an email vote between Friday and Monday afternoons, 47 of the state’s sheriffs opposed the bills, 10 were in favor, five abstained and five others could not be contacted. Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, representing the association, said Thursday that a number of sheriffs are against the measures because of philosophical reasons or simply the concept. Gualtieri added that other opponents would prefer changes, such as a need for additional training of permit holders, a better definition of where people couldn’t openly carry guns and a requirement that openly displayed firearms are secured. “There is absolutely no requirement that it be carried in a holster,” Gualtieri said. “If someone is walking down the street, open-carry, with his .45(-caliber handgun) stuck in their back pocket, somebody could just come up and take it out of their pocket. That’s not safe.”

Bob Owens states:

A person acting in an otherwise normal, rational and law-abiding way should not be stopped merely because his shirt rode up, or was too tight, or she simply felt more comfortable carrying a firearm outside the waistband instead of concealed.

Perhaps if Florida law enforcement hadn’t abused existing laws to punish law-abiding concealed carriers who accidentally exposed their firearms I’d feel more sympathy for them, but they have… and so I don’t.

45 of the 50 states allow some form of open carry.

It is absurd that Florida does not.

Yes, it is absurd, but given Bob’s opposition to Texas open carry, frankly I’m not sure where he stands on the issue.  But abuse of concealed carriers isn’t the reason to support open carry, and I wouldn’t be more supportive of the Sheriff’s opposition to the proposed law under any circumstances.  Bob wants them to develop a more coherent case for their opposition, and I don’t think there is one to be developed.

So the Sheriffs are concerned about people taking guns from unsecure holsters (non-retention holsters or those not in positive control of their firearms, I guess)?  Well, this is a stupid concern and doesn’t represent a coherent case for opposition to the law.

It’s a concern for folks openly carrying, but not LEOs.  Since when does anyone oppose a proposed law that recognizes use and carry of a piece of property because a thief, larcenist or petty crook can steal your property?  That makes no sense.

Do we also oppose ownership of automobiles because criminals can steal them?  Sometimes people are responsible with their cars, and they still get stolen.  Sometimes they drop their keys in a parking lot and thus they get stolen.  We don’t change automobile ownership and use laws because someone drops their keys.  And to be sure, the easiest way to perpetrate a mass killing is with a car, instantaneously and without LEO intervention.

I think Bob should clarify his position on open carry.  I support it without reservation, and there is no coherent argument against its legality.  If Bob wants to clarify what this “coherent” opposition to the legality of open carry is, I’ll assess it.  As for the Florida Sheriffs, I don’t really care what they think.

Via Mike Vanderboegh, Bob Owens:

As a direct result of Cooley’s stunt, Georgia Democrat Hank Johnson has now proposed a federal law to ban both open and concealed carry in airports … Thankfully, is is very unlikely that Johnson will amass enough support to make this bill viable.

Sadly, we’re now having to devote energies on defense to explain why Johnson’s proposed bill really isn’t “common sense.” It’s a prospect made all the more difficult because your average citizen isn’t going to be able to grasp why a mentally healthy person might want or need to walk into an airport with AR-15 with a drum magazine inserted to see someone off at the airport, unless that airport is in Afghanistan.

When gun rights activists and pro-gun lawmakers have to deal with distracting, grandstanding behavior like Cooley’s, it takes away time we could better spend attempting to pass other pro-gun laws, or dismantle gun control laws already on the books.

Jim Cooley’s fifteen-minute stunt did nothing to help the gun rights movement, and gave gun control supporters ammunition that they will reuse again and again for years to come to portray gun owners as extreme, paranoid, and out of touch with the American mainstream.

That’s not helping us, and never will.

I’m not even close … no, let me find a better way to say this … I am literally light years from understanding Bob’s argument.  If I were to lay it out syllogistically, it may look something like this.

• We currently have rights understood to be so by the authorities and people, one of which is open carry of both long guns and handguns.
• Exercising that right may invoke the disapprobation of the lawmakers.
• The lawmakers may remove their written approval.
• If they remove their written approval, we can’t exercise that right.

But of course the problem is that if we could never exercise the right without recognition of it being removed, recognition of it was a phantom to begin with.  It doesn’t work for me to say that perhaps he should have carried a handgun openly, because the same person could have gotten offended at the handgun, which the media surely would have called a “high caliber high magazine clip assault handgun.”  It would effect the same end for the collectivists.  If they are offended at long guns, they will be offended at handguns.

Now, if Bob’s real concern is that he believes we are ostracizing ourselves, then he is lobbying for the wrong thing.  He should be lobbying for a new law prohibiting open carry.

So completely aside from the issue of whether you concur with what this person did (i.e., carry of an AR-15 in an airport) or even agree with open carry, Bob’s argument makes absolutely no sense to me.  I don’t understand why he is in a fit and why he presented the argument the way he did.  Again, if he believes there is no reason to open carry and he wants folks behave differently, he can lobby for a law and we can evaluate his argument on its merits.

Detroit Free Press:

When a man armed with a loaded assault pistol strapped to his leg, dressed in camouflage, and singing to himself, began walking in front of a Grand Rapids church one snowy Sunday morning in March 2014, an alarmed churchgoer called 911. When police arrived, they took the man’s gun, and briefly handcuffed him while they questioned him. The man, Johann Deffert, an “open carry” gun advocate, then sued police saying they had violated his constitutional rights.

A federal judge disagreed.

In a decision released last week, U.S. District Judge Janet Neff tossed Deffert’s lawsuit, saying the police officer “was justified in following up on the 911 call and using swift action to determine whether plaintiff’s behavior gave rise to a need to protect or preserve life … in the neighborhood.”

[ … ]

“We’re seeing sporadic reports of it from around the state, those who are trying to draw attention to themselves and it’s needlessly alarming people,” said Robert Stevenson, executive director of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, which has 1,100 members. “People aren’t used to seeing someone brandish a gun in front of their kids’ schools.”

Stevenson said the increasingly confrontational nature of the clashes is dangerous.

“It puts the police in a position where, we don’t know what their intent is, so they’re going to approach this person, not realizing that the intent is to hurt somebody. It’s a terrible situation what these people are doing, somebody is going to get hurt.”

Sheriff’s officials say they are duty-bound to investigate what they perceive as threatening behavior, regardless of whether a person has a permit to carry a weapon or whether they are openly carrying a weapon in a place permitted by law.

Michigan is an open carry state without a stop and identify statute.  Thus has judge Neff fabricated law out of whole cloth, without even the input of the legislature.  A black robed tyrant, she is.  As for the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police (assuming Stevenson is the one quoted on the duty to investigate threatening behavior), he is of course lying.  He is wrong and knows it, which makes it a lie.  See Castle Rock versus Gonzalez.  Police are absolutely not “duty bound” to do any such thing.

Thus has Stevenson fabricated duties out of whole cloth in order to support the illegal stop and identify and detention.  Rights?  Laws?  Eh, who needs them?  The system has judges and cops.  That’s all they need.

KFSM/KXNW:

Benton County Sheriff Kelley Cradduck says his deputies will not arrest anyone who openly carries a handgun.

“As long as the law is written as it is then we will not arrest any citizen for simply exercising their right to open carry,” the sheriff wrote on his Facebook page on Monday (June 1).

Cradduck said he posted his views on the issue because an overwhelming number of people have asked for his thoughts about open carry.

People committing crimes while openly carrying a handgun will still find themselves on the wrong side of the law, he noted.

“If there are other exigent circumstances involved, such as they are committing a crime while openly carrying, then they stand a good chance of being charged for whatever crime they committed, along with the charge of carrying a firearm without a concealed handgun license,” he wrote.

The controversy whether open carry is legal in Arkansas began after a bill was passed in the 2013 legislative session containing language some believe allows for open carry of handguns.  Dustin McDaniel, who was the attorney general at the time, said open carry of handguns is illegal in the state.

However, the current attorney general, Leslie Rutledge, said she believes the law, known as Act 746, allows for open carry.

“I interpret it to mean an individual may carry so long as he or she does so without the intent to unlawfully employ it against another person,” she told 5NEWS in a prepared statement on Monday. “But anytime law enforcement and citizens disagree on a law we need to ensure there is clarity to protect our citizens. I am committed to working with the General Assembly to clarify any confusion surrounding Act 746 and its intent.”

Cradduck said in his Facebook post that he will stand by his position until state legislators approve a measure clarifying the law.

“Until the legislative bodies come together and write the law very clearly stating if and where you may or may not openly carry without a license, then I will not permit my deputies to arrest individuals who are carrying their firearms in an open fashion,” he wrote.

In 2013, Washington County Sheriff Tim Helder said he agreed with then-Prosecuting Attorney John Threet that open carry is permitted. Threet, who later won election as a Circuit Court judge, said he didn’t plan on prosecuting gun owners who openly carry firearms in Washington County. Helder said he would use Threet’s opinion in instructing his deputies on the legality of firearm open carry.

In the comments to Communist Art Acevedo Kills Constitutional Carry In Texas we discussed the various exigencies and vicissitudes of what LEOs think, how judges are likely to decide cases before them and other issues surrounding open carry when the law isn’t clear.

In Texas the lack of a provision prohibiting LEOs from stopping open carriers to demand evidence of permit will be a problem, I predict.  In Arkansas we see now the problems associated with muddled laws.  A note to legislators is in order.  You aren’t doing anyone any favors by muddling the laws.  Not LEOs, not judges, not the people.  No one benefits because of your vacillation.

Texas Tribune:

Texas police chiefs are urging Gov. Greg Abbott to veto legislation repealing certain handgun restrictions in Texas if lawmakers do not remove a controversial provision the chiefs fear would allow criminals to carry firearms without repercussions.

If the provision stays on the bill, the only responsible thing for Abbott to do would be to veto it, Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo said at an impromptu news conference organized as the legislation faces what could be a final vote in the House on Wednesday. “You can’t be the party of law and order and not listen to your police chiefs,” he said.

[ … ]

Flanked by about a dozen law enforcement leaders from around the state, Acevedo said Wednesday that the legislation would “handcuff” police officers, endangering both them and the communities they protect.

“The sky is falling!  The sky is falling!”  Art Acevedo is a communist and liar.  He knows that other traditional open carry states like North Carolina (where simply openly carrying a gun does not constitute legitimate reason for a stop) don’t have the problems he says will come from constitutional carry in Texas.

But a little background is in order.  The House and Senate both managed to tack on a provision that LEOs couldn’t stop open carriers and ask for proof of concealed carry permits.  Communist Art Acevedo was successful and this provision was killed.

After a week of hand-wringing over a controversial amendment — and what proved to be empty threats of a Democratic filibuster — the measure sailed through both chambers of the Legislature on Friday afternoon. The vote in the House was 102 to 43; in the Senate, 20 to 11.

[ … ]

Last week, the bill’s passage was temporarily delayed when the Senate unexpectedly revived a provision that would limit the power of police officers to ask those carrying handguns visibly for a permit.

The so-called “cop stop” amendment had support from some Democrats who said it would help prevent racial profiling, as well as conservatives who said it was necessary to protect the public against unreasonable searches and seizures. But it stirred vocal criticism from the state’s police chiefs, some of whom held an impromptu news conference at the Capitol to urge Abbott to veto the bill if the language stayed in.

And so they listened to the LEOs and the provision was killed.  As a side note, LEOs have no business whatsoever engaging in advocating laws or policy.  LEOs are tasked with certain things, and making law isn’t one of those things.  There should be contractual obligations prohibiting this kind of advocacy.

As for the law makers who listened to communist Art Acevedo, you are communist scumbags along with Art Acevedo.  Every politician who allowed or in any way encouraged or advocated such a sellout of liberty is not only a racist, bowing their knee to Jim Crow laws, but a waste of the very space your bodies occupy.  You are worthless as men and leaders of men, preferring to relinquish your God-given duties to protect the rights of all men in favor of acceptance by other men.  You have exchanged good for evil, and continue to support a totalitarian government in both idea and statute, and God will have His day for you in the final white throne court.  You who worship men rather than God – that will be a terrible day.

It would have been better for the law to have failed, and for the good people of Texas to wait for true liberty rather than scramble after the crumbs that fall from the master’s table.  Color me unimpressed with any of the politicians in Texas, and I still wait for a leader to emerge who will respect God-given rights.  At the moment, I don’t see one.

The Texas Tribune:

After more than six hours — and a testy debate that escalated dramatically when unusual alliances formed between a few Democrats and a group of Tea Party-backed Republicans — the Texas Senate approved a measure loosening state restrictions on handguns Friday.

The legislation allowing Texans with licenses to carry handguns openly eventually passed on a final 20 to 11 vote.

But before it did, the chamber plunged into rare unscripted territory, as Democrats and Republicans battled members of their own parties over an amendment from state Sen. Don Huffines, R-Dallas, that would prohibit police officers from stopping someone solely because they are visibly carrying a handgun.

The provision, which eventually passed, attracted support from Democrats who said it would help prevent racial profiling and conservatives who said it was necessary to protect the Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure of handgun license holders.

“This should not be complicated; it should not be controversial. This is a bipartisan issue,” Huffines said.

Opponents of the provision called it nothing more than an effort to sneak in a repeal of licensing requirements altogether.

“This is just a back door to constitutional carry because really any person could just carry a gun without a license because they know the police can’t inquire of them if they have a license,” said state Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, who unsuccessfully attempted to heighten penalties for carrying handguns without a license during the debate.

The amendment, approved overwhelmingly when the House passed the open carry bill, was taken out in committee when the legislation reached the Senate.

Recall that I had said before, “licensed open carry in a state with no stop and identify statute for enforcement is a shooting-by-cop waiting to happen.  And I certainly don’t support empowering the police state any more by giving them a stop and identify statute.  That would be making something bad even worse.”

Nefarious things can happen in committee when differences in bills between the House and Senate are ironed out, but this provision appears to be part of both versions of the bill.  It should stay in.  We’ll see if the Governor keeps his word now.  As for the provision that LEOs cannot stop someone because they witness him carrying a gun, this is a very strong statement and I’m impressed that this finally passed the legislative process in Texas (after much pain and gnashing of teeth).

Someone must be reading TCJ.

The title is a little bit of a misnomer (since the article focuses on one chief) but follows the title at KXAN.com:

CEDAR PARK, Texas (KXAN) — At McBride’s Guns in Central Austin, gun sales are up in advance of an open carry law potentially being passed at the state Capitol. But Cedar Park Police Chief Sean Mannix says there are several unanswered questions attached to the law.

“What are the requirements of open carry, what about proof of eligibility?” he said. “Will people have to carry it with them?”

All 84 of his officers attend training on a daily basis for a variety of reasons, and even more training will be required if the bill passes.

“I will say that’s just a reality,” said Mannix. “It is going to be difficult for the beat cop to know who should have a gun, who shouldn’t have a gun, and frankly there are people out there who shouldn’t own guns.”

Mannix also serves as the chair of the Texas Association of Police Chiefs. He worries open carry could make situations, like ones involving an active shooter, more dangerous.

“The last thing you want to see is somebody with a gun who’s not a police officer at an active shooter situation not immediately responding to commands to drop their weapon and get on the ground,” the chief said.

The Chief has raised two different issues in the same breath.  The first issue has to do with proof of eligibility, and I told you this would be a problem.

… licensed open carry in a state with no stop and identify statute for enforcement is a shooting-by-cop waiting to happen.  And I certainly don’t support empowering the police state any more by giving them a stop and identify statute.  That would be making something bad even worse.

Gun rights advocates are better off to hold out for constitutional carry rather than begging for scraps that fall from the master’s table.

I didn’t say give Texas LEOs a stop and identify statute.  I said give the citizens of Texas recognition of their constitutional rights with un-permitted open carry.

The second issue the Chief raises has to do with situations of responses.  He said, “The last thing you want to see is somebody with a gun who’s not a police officer at an active shooter situation not immediately responding to commands to drop their weapon and get on the ground.”

Why does he think this is going to be a problem?  First of all, the situation is likely to be mitigated by the time LEOs get there if there are carriers in the area, and whether they are open carriers or concealed carriers isn’t relevant to the question (there are concealed carriers all over Texas and always have been).  So what problems has the Chief seen that he thinks will get worse because of some unstated characteristic of open carriers?  My suspicion is that there are no problems the Chief can cite because he is using boogey-man arguments.  Boo!  Boo!  Be askeerd!

In the end we all know the truth, and it is that constitutional carry, concealed or open, is the best option because it comports with the rights God has granted to men and women.  The politicians and LEOs in Texas have apparently yet to learn (or acknowledge) that.

SunwolfNC:

Hah. That author has no intention of ever questioning LEOs’ ability or The System at large. That article clearly demonstrates where she is in their caste system. She is fully entrenched and a willing minon. To her anyone who wants to think and act on their own within the framework of the Constitution, is clearly a knuckle dragging potential murderer who should be arrested and jailed immediately (sic).  Isn’t the ‘party of tolerance’ great?

Great comment!  I hadn’t thought of it that way, but then again that’s why I have great readers – to point out great things to me.  Opponents of open carry, who themselves support open carry for LEOs, believe in and defend a caste system within America.  There is no other way to look at it.  Such thinking is clearly prejudiced, bigoted and entrenched in ancient and indefensible tiers of privilege.

Freakout in Maine:

The gun lobby makes the facile claim that since carrying a gun openly is legal, why should concealing the gun make any difference? Well, I suppose carrying a gun openly tends to attract the attention of bank guards, convenience store cashiers, police officers on patrol and the rest of us trying to keep our distance from kooks. And most gun owners recognize that carrying a gun openly does look a little foolish.

This is perhaps an accidental use of the word facile (or at least, he didn’t know what he was doing).  He charges the “gun lobby” (whomever that is) with a facile argument, and then proceeds to offer up what we might consider a facile argument himself for why there is a difference between open and permitted concealed carry.  But I notice that he doesn’t charge police officers with looking “a little foolish” for the open carry of firearms.  Perhaps he should explain why he thinks there’s a difference between police officers and anyone else openly carrying weapons.  Tennessee versus Garner clearly stipulates that police officers can only discharge their firearms in self defense or defense of someone else, which is also clearly the stipulations under which we all operate.  So I expect that to be the next subject the author tackles in an article that doesn’t engage in facile argumentation.

Freakout in the great Northwest:

As I strolled through Target the other day, feeling as safe as can be among the wondrous outlay of products available for purchase, I passed the furniture department where a man and woman shopped for a shelf.

Strapped to the man’s belt was a handgun in a hard-plastic case. I understand that in the gun community, such a weapon makes the carrier feel safe; however, it had the opposite effect on me. How was I to know that the person carrying that gun was someone I could trust? Would he, at any moment, misread a stranger’s comment or movement, pull his gun and blast him/her away?

I tell you, I didn’t breathe normally until I’d cleared the doors of Target and was heading to my car.

In other news, there was another wrong-home police raid in New York, a North Charleston cop just shot a man in the back for a minor traffic stop, the Watertown reaction to the Boston Marathon bombing involved “officers arriving on scene near the conclusion of the firefight fired weapons toward the vicinity of the suspects, without necessarily having identified and lined up their target or appropriately aimed their weapons,” an officer in Texas “accidentally” fired his gun on a junior high school campus, cops are still shooting their guns in town hall, and a quarter of a million dogs are shot each year by cops, often (always?) needlessly.

The writer offered up no explanation as to why she trusts cops carrying guns openly but no one else.  Perhaps that will be covered in a future article.

The video below is being bandied about over various internet forums, as well as via Bob Owens.  Bob’s commenters are all confused and basically don’t know what they are talking about.  Similarly, the comments over the YouTube video – some of which are supportive and some of which aren’t – point to a problem of understanding and confusion.  Watch the video and then I’ll clear up that confusion for you.

He was just trying to tell if the person was a felon, or so the comment[s] at YouTube go.  The cop clearly is in favor of gun rights, claiming (falsely) that he is a three percenter.  “I’m sympathetic to the cop here,” says Uncle.

Now, take a deep breath, calm down and let’s clear up the confusion.  The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a legendary body slam to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department for stopping a man for openly carrying a weapon in an open carry state (North Carolina), even when it was later determined that the man was a criminal.  See Fourth Circuit Finds That Carrying A Firearm In An Open Carry State Does Not Create Reasonable Suspicion And Provides Thorough Analysis Of The “Free To Leave” Standard.

This was clearly not a so-called “Terry Stop” (the cop didn’t believe a law had been broken) and the LEO had no need or right to know whether the man was a felon.  According to the court, it was none of his business.  No demurral, case closed, end of discussion.  Period.  That’s all.  You don’t need to know any more than that.

But since the bed wetters (who may be reading this) might need to know more, we’re going to help you.

OK, it is fairly simple.  If you are under arrest refuse to provide your name, date of birth, or residence address, you commit a Class C misdemeanor unless you have warrants outstanding, when it is a Class B misdemeanor.  If you are either under arrest or lawfully detained, it is an offense to provide a false name, date of birth or address.  The later is a Class B or A misdemeanor, dependent on whether you have outstanding warrants.

What is not an offense is refusing to provide your name, date of birth, or residence address when you are lawfully detained. See Dutton v. Hayes-Pupko, No. 03-06-00438-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 6030, 2008 WL 3166324 (Tex. App.–Austin 2008, no pet.).  The court held that Deputy Derrick Dutton had arrested Sheryl Hayes-Pupko without probable cause since the law did not require her to identify herself while she was only being detained..  Dutton’s mistake of law did not provide a defense for the false arrest claim.

Unfortunately, this is not unusual for Texas.  Police officers in this state have an idea that they have the right to identify anyone at anytime for any or no reason.  The courts have repeatedly slapped them down on this.

• “The application of Tex. Penal Code Ann., Tit. 8, § 38.02 (1974), to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct.  Accordingly, appellant may not be punished for refusing to identify himself, and the conviction is Reversed.”  Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979).
• “It is clear petitioner was arrested and convicted for his refusal to answer Officer Jennings’ question requesting that petitioner identify himself. This is impermissible even in the context of a lawful investigatory stop.” Spring v. Caldwell, 516 F. Supp. 1223 (S.D. Tex. 1981), reversed on other grounds 692 F.2d 994 (5th Cir. 1982).
• “First, Officer Lowe obtained identification from each occupant of the automobile though he had no legal basis whatever for demanding them.”  Lewis v. State, 664 S.W.2d 345 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).
• “Moreover, the Supreme Court has previously dealt with a case in which Texas police officers demanded that an individual identify himself even though they had no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime. In Brown v. Texas, the Court [11]  ruled that Texas Penal Code Ann. § 38.02 (a), as enacted by the Texas legislature in 1974, was unconstitutional because it allowed an officer to stop and demand identification of an individual without any specific basis or belief that he was involved in criminal activity.” Weddle v. Ferrell, No. 3:99-CV-0453-G, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2659, 2000 WL 256891 (N.D. Tex. 2000).
• “Officers have the right to conduct an investigation of a driver following a traffic violation, but do not have authority to investigate a passenger without reasonable suspicion.”  St. George v. State, 237 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (holding that arrest of passenger for failure to identify not valid absent legal detention).

Yet we still see police officers demand identification in Texas and threaten arrest (or actually make arrest) on Failure to Identify when in fact, no offense has occurred.

Although oriented towards Texas law, this is true even in states that have stop and identify statutes if the stop isn’t a so-called “Terry Stop.”  The officer has no need or right to know who the person is.  Period.  Do you understand now?

The officer was a jackass, but worse than that, he was wrong as to the details and application of the law, like many LEOs today are.  Before the bed-wetters blow their bladders, they need to study the law a little bit.  And Bob Owens needs to educate his readers rather than allowing the pooling of ignorance in comments over his web site.  That is unseemly and undignified.