User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/16/2002 7:21:51 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...if you get a set of digitals that is not a Marine uniform Marines wouldn't care, they do make them they had them at the CLNC exchange for Corpsmen and Chaplains, etc. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was wondering about that. So, they actually make these without the imbedded USMC device for Navy personnel attached to USMC units? Are they otherwise identical? After all, it wouldn't be too smart to have the corpsman stand out in a different uniform in a combat-type environment. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Corpsmen hit the beaches with the Marines, they deserve the same considerations. One of the 6 soldiers in the famous Iwo Jima flag raising photo was a Corpsman, and a highly decorated one at that. Check out "Flags of Our Fathers" for the story. Oh, absolutely. I spent almost 3 years with the FMF. STLRN and others have stated the MARPAT's (or whatever the hell the official name is) are only authorized for wear by USMC personnel. I was wondering what the corpsmen wear now, in that case. Are they specifically authorized to wear the new pattern even though the EGA is embedded in the pattern, or do they have to buy different uniforms WITHOUT the EGA. If so, are the uniforms otherwise identical, pattern-wise? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2002 7:57:12 AM EDT
[#2]
They make a version of the Marine Corps Combat Utility Uniform without the Marine Corps Emblem on them, however the MCO that covers the MCCUU states Navy personnel with FMF units for purposes of uniformity are authorized the wear of the MCCUUs.
Sorry There is a big difference between a hoo-rah shirt and a uniform. One is just a piece of clothing another is a uniform that signifies its wearer as a member of an organization, the same way with police uniforms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2002 7:57:43 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: Oh, absolutely. I spent almost 3 years with the FMF. STLRN and others have stated the MARPAT's (or whatever the hell the official name is) are only authorized for wear by USMC personnel. I was wondering what the corpsmen wear now, in that case. Corpsmen wear Navy uniforms. Bad guys see this and flee, and the Jar-Heads beat their chest. Scott |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2002 8:01:05 AM EDT
[#4]
If you where the new camoflauge in public everyone will know you are NOT a Marine, because Marines are NOT authorized to wear camoflauge in public places. (except to buy gas or diapers... stuff like that)
Navy Corpsman can qualify to wear the USMC uniform (Marine Regs). Chaplains wear the USMC uniform if they are serving with a USMC unit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2002 8:48:30 AM EDT
[#5]
I have just done some research, with a few [shock] or more phone calls... buerocracy - gotta love it (btw, I need a secretary too - they all have one)
[url]http://www.usmc.mil/almars/almar2000.nsf/6aeb342237d3f81d852569b8007f608b/60089a7d2dbef60285256bbf005cb34e?OpenDocument[/url] [u]The above defines "uniform" according to USMC regulations (CUU- Combat Utility Uniform).[/u] Leave out the hat or the trousers or the boots, etc...(or hell, just leave off the name tape) it's not a uniform without the whole ensemble. [u](pick one and lose it)[/u] [size=3][blue]Guess what civvies! You [b]may[/b] wear MARPAT if you fucking feel like it.[/blue][/size=3] I have a voicemail in to Capt. Dukes to further clarify how this "civvie no-wear-y" misnomer came to be. As it stands now, you may piss off a marine if he stares at your shorts to see the anchor - but it is not illegal [rolleyes] Hopefully this is done for good. If I hear differently from Dukes, I'll eat crow and put it up here. Now to enter the labrynth of U.S. code and cross check. Aaack.[:D] [email protected] in case you wanna know for yourself ([email protected] for a second opinion) Edit: To clarify, the above link is the current Reg. concerning MARPAT usage and issuance as of May 20, 2002. [owned] pwn |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2002 8:54:15 AM EDT
[#6]
Now, some have quoted laws that describe who may/may not wear military uniforms and/or parts thereof.
I suspect the original intent of such laws was to provide a penalty for someone impersonating a member of the armed forces, or claiming a rank or award that they had not earned. Fair enough, and I support such laws as far as that goes. However, I come from a Navy town, and we have LOTS of former service people living here. My estimate is that I see two or three people every day with USMC "covers", emblazoned with, you guessed it, the G&A. Now some of these folks look to be old-timers, maybe veterans of WWII, Korea, or Vietnam. If the above law is to be applied [b]fairly and uniformly[/b], then the uniform police or S.P.s or what have you will also have to haul in some old, grizzled veteran of Okinawa or Chosin or Hue. Fair's fair, let's not play favorites here. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I expect anyone, civilian or otherwise who arrested some old vet would become the laughingstock of their department or command. That's why the idea of arresting someone for wearing MARPAT is laughable. Won't happen, unless and until some other, more egregious violation occurs as well, such as public drunkenness, or actually [i]trying[/i] to impersonate a member of the armed forces. I've seen lots of Vietnam vets marching in parades. As some of you may have noticed, a few of them are somewhat unconcerned with the letter of the regs concerning uniforms. Never once have I seen one of them arrested for being out of uniform. Probably never will, either. So get off this idea of uniform regs being widely applied to civilians. Ain't gonna happen, with RARE exceptions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2002 9:37:10 AM EDT
[#7]
They make a version of the Marine Corps Combat Utility Uniform without the Marine Corps Emblem on them, however the MCO that covers the MCCUU states Navy personnel with FMF units for purposes of uniformity are authorized the wear of the MCCUUs. I thought that might be the case, but based on my experience with Navy and USMC bureaucracy, ya jest never know until the S-1 waves a hardcopy of the ALNAV/ALMAR at you.[>:/] Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2002 1:05:24 PM EDT
[#8]
That is called reading into the statement what one wants to hear. The Captain stated that it was perfectly legal to own, which no one disputes. However, that doesn’t play in to the US code were it is illegal to wear uniforms or [b] distinctive parts of uniforms [/b]. Which most of you want to ignore in the discussion, distinctive part of the uniform is any part that you can tell is a specific portion of the uniform. The MCCUU is the blouse, trousers and the cover, but each is a distinctive part of the uniform. Marines can currently wear the MCCUU with the old boots, so that definition is off since you are in MCCUU dispite which boots you wear (they have a separate name also) And I can assure you most member of the military don’t even know that the law exists and is written in such a manner. Like the service members who stated there was no aw against the wear of the uniform.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2002 2:12:36 PM EDT
[#9]
One of the local high schools here has a USMC JROTC program.... they currently wear standard woodland camo cammies.... It will be interesting to see if they switch over to MARPAT ina couple years, as most of thier gear comes first or second hand through the USMC supply system.
Are they exempted under that law, or should they be rounded up and arrested.... and does signing up for a class in 8th grade earn you the right to wear the EGA? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2002 2:33:03 PM EDT
[#10]
On "distinctive parts of uniforms". here is what Army regulation 670-1 says:
[i]d. In accordance with chapter 45, section 771, title 10, United States Code (10 USC 771), no person except a member of the U.S. Army may wear the uniform, or a distinctive part of the uniform of the U.S. Army unless otherwise authorized by law. Additionally, no person except a member of the U.S. Army may wear a uniform, any part of which is similar to a distinctive part of the U.S. Army uniform. This includes the distinctive uniforms and uniform items listed in paragraph 1–12 of this regulation. 1–12. Distinctive uniforms and uniform items a. The following uniform items are distinctive and will not be sold to or worn by unauthorized personnel: (1) All Army headgear, when worn with insignia. (2) Badges and tabs (identification, marksmanship, combat, and special skill). (3) Uniform buttons (U.S. Army or Corps of Engineers). (4) Decorations, service medals, service and training ribbons, and other awards and their appurtenances. (5) Insignia of any design or color that the Army has adopted. b. Individuals will remove all distinctive items before disposing of unserviceable uniform items. [/i] Under the Army definition, Insignia, patches, decorations, and tapes are DISTINCTIVE PARTS, but a clothing item is not..... does the USMC differ in its interpritation of the law? STLRN, I don't disagree with you that the law exists, only what you are calling DISTINCTIVE PARTS.... and the entire Army does as well. The Army has a definition in the regs of what is distincive, and I bet if you dig you will find that the USMC does as well. Does it include any part of a uniform? If they don't have a reg outline what is distinctive, odds are a judge in any court would use the Army regs as a guide. Before you make up your mind what is "DISTINCTIVE" check the regs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2002 4:45:51 PM EDT
[#11]
I have to post this like a dozen times so far, the bold portion is the exemption for students under Marine Corps instruction. The part about distinctive part would pretty much be settled if you look at the tags that come with the uniform "Made Expressly for the US Marine Corps" in ever part of the MCCUUs. The Marine Corps has always held our cammies as a uniform, that is one of the reasons we have enforce allot the regs in regard to when and where they can be worn. The other services on the other hand are much more lack, to the point that you can see them wearing cammies in violation of their own regs. My favorite is to see them at dinner late at night in violation of their own orders.
LAWS PERTAINING TO THE UNIFORM 1. Per 10 U.S.C. 771, no person, unless other-wise authorized by law, except a member of the Marine Corps may wear the uniform or a distinctive part of the uniform of which is similar to a distinctive part of the Marine Corps uniform. 2. According to 18 U.S.C. 702, whoever, in any place within the jurisdiction of the United States or in the Canal Zone, without authority wears the Marine Corps uniform will be fined not more than $250 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both. 3. According to 10 U.S.C. 772, the Marine Corps uniform may be worn by personnel not on active duty under the following conditions: a. Retired Marine Corps officers may bear the title and wear the uniform of their retired grade. b. Former Marines who are discharged honorably or under honorable conditions from the Marine Corps may wear their uniform while going from the place of discharge to their home of record, within three months after discharge. c. Former Marines not on active duty who served honorably in time of war in the Marine Corps may bear the title, and as authorized by regulations prescribed by the President, wear the uniform of the highest grade held during that war (subparagraph 11002.1). d. While portraying a member of the Marine Corps, an actor in a theatrical or motion picture production may wear the Marine Corps uniform provided the portrayal does not tend to discredit the Marine Corps. [b]e. While attending a course of military instruction conducted by the Marine Corps, a civilian may wear the uniform prescribed by the commander of the installation conducting the instruction [/b] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2002 5:57:56 PM EDT
[#12]
But once again, what legally is a "distincive part"... the Army reads the law to mean insignia, badges and decorations. What does the USMC reg define as such under the law.
Just cause the tag says made just for the USMC doesn't meet the legal definition of "distinctive part". |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2002 6:11:06 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: They make a version of the Marine Corps Combat Utility Uniform without the Marine Corps Emblem on them, CPT, First, that sounds like bullsh-t, I may not be a Marine, but I worked for Defense Logistics Agency and I would love to see that contract. Second, my dad was a Corpsman, never went to Sea as a Sailor, spent his Sea time with the Marines. He wore the EGA and spent a tour in Vietnam with Marines. When he retired in 1969 he processed out in a Marine uniform, (the green one) Also, last I checked, the USMC is a Corp of Naval Infantry and as such is part of the Navy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2002 7:01:39 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: ...but I worked for Defense Logistics Agency Were you at AKZ in Warren? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2002 7:12:58 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Quoted: ...but I worked for Defense Logistics Agency Were you at AKZ in Warren? DRMS - Battle Creek |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2002 7:35:51 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ...but I worked for Defense Logistics Agency Were you at AKZ in Warren? DRMS - Battle Creek Yeah, I remembered after posting that AKZ ia a TACOM facility. All the DLA sights begin with S9. I've been out of the parts game for too long. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2002 7:40:02 PM EDT
[#17]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quoted: No offense, but R.Lee Ermey is an idiot... I know he's playing a "role," but come'on... and if I was a Marine (I'm not, I graduated high school) I would be embarrassed that this guy was on TV representing the USMC. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Crawl back in your fucking hole. Aw, blow me humpboy... The guy acts like a bozo. None of the Marines I know act or would ever act like that. The guy is a full on sell out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2002 7:41:41 PM EDT
[#18]
Does this have to be repeated every week? The reason active duty Marines don't want you to have the new cammies is because we need them. Paying taxes doesn't entitle you to wear the uniform that I worked, sweated and bled for. The Marines on this board have tried to explain all of this in a civil manner. I have yet to see anyone say that you would, or even that you should be arrested for wearing this uniform. Just that it is illegal. I haven't seen anyone threaten to hurt someone for wearing it. It bothers us because we EARNED the right to wear that uniform. It bothers us because we are required to have them, and there aren't enough to go around. And it bothers us because you people can't accept any of that and restrain yourselves from buying our fucking uniforms for 2 years until every Marine has a set. It bothers me that I have a set of MARPAT desert cammies with no cover. I can't find a cover for them at Cash Sales. But they're on Ebay. Collectors have them. It is very likely that many Marines will be in Iraq within the next 6 months. Most of them will deploy in the old desert cammies. They new cammies are supposed to be better, but I'll never know because I can't get all the parts to wear them as a complete set. If you want a set for your collection, or because you think they are the best camo out there, or because you want to impress you buddies at the range, that is fine with me. But let the people that are required to have them get them first. Believe it or not, you aren't the only person that pays taxes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2002 8:18:53 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: First, that sounds like bullsh-t, I may not be a Marine, but I worked for Defense Logistics Agency and I would love to see that contract. Second, my dad was a Corpsman, never went to Sea as a Sailor, spent his Sea time with the Marines. He wore the EGA and spent a tour in Vietnam with Marines. When he retired in 1969 he processed out in a Marine uniform, (the green one) Also, last I checked, the USMC is a Corp of Naval Infantry and as such is part of the Navy. Okay, no need to go calling Marines Sailors. That is just uncalled for. [argue] The Marine Corps is its own independent armed service, further defined (help me if I'm wrong) in 1947 with a security act. The USMC falls under the Department of the Navy, but is not a part of the Navy. "Green Side" Navy Corpsman are a part of the Marine Corps by tradition. They fight, kill and sometimes die next to the Marines. Corpsman have earned their honor (not a right) to wear the USMC uniform if they maintain Marine regulations and serve "Green" side. Yes, Marines are by history sea soldiers. This dates back to the Greeks, but stronger ties to the British Royal Marines. The USMC has never lost a battle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2002 1:59:56 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: None of the Marines I know act or would ever act like that. The guy is a full on sell out. He acts like a DI at recruit training. There was a study several years ago and it found that in the late 80s more Marines cited the movie Full Metal Jacket as the reason they joined the Marine Corps than about anything else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2002 2:03:58 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: Quoted: They make a version of the Marine Corps Combat Utility Uniform without the Marine Corps Emblem on them, CPT, First, that sounds like bullsh-t, I may not be a Marine, but I worked for Defense Logistics Agency and I would love to see that contract. Second, my dad was a Corpsman, never went to Sea as a Sailor, spent his Sea time with the Marines. He wore the EGA and spent a tour in Vietnam with Marines. When he retired in 1969 he processed out in a Marine uniform, (the green one) Also, last I checked, the USMC is a Corp of Naval Infantry and as such is part of the Navy. They still have the covers for the Navy version in stock at clothing sales at Lejeune, it doesn't have the Marine Corps Emblem embroidered into it. I was told that is the only difference in the blouse also, no Marine Corps Emblem on the breast pocket. But they only got a few sets and those were all sold out in a few days. But it isn't required anyway since Navy personnel with the FMF are authorized to wear them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2002 2:08:06 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: But once again, what legally is a "distincive part"... the Army reads the law to mean insignia, badges and decorations. What does the USMC reg define as such under the law. Just cause the tag says made just for the USMC doesn't meet the legal definition of "distinctive part". But that is the army's interpretation, since we don't really wear badges, and other unnecessary add on to our uniforms etc it isn't necessary to define what makes our uniform, because we all see it as a uniform. Just like the blues or Alpha, they are a uniform even without the accoutrements added. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2002 2:56:27 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Also, last I checked, the USMC is a Corp of Naval Infantry and as such is part of the Navy. Yer damn skippy they're a part of the Navy!! Wooohooooo! Anchors Aweigh me boys! Scott |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2002 3:00:03 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: The Marine Corps is its own independent armed service, further defined (help me if I'm wrong) in 1947 with a security act. The USMC falls under the Department of the Navy, but is not a part of the Navy. Let's see `em get to the battle without their daddy, the USN! Remember, My Ass Rides in [b]Navy[/b] Equipment! [:)] Scott |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2002 3:11:17 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: It's not the clothes, symbols or patches that make a Marine, a Marine. You got that right!! USMC Rigger '66-'69 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2002 5:07:36 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Quoted: But once again, what legally is a "distincive part"... the Army reads the law to mean insignia, badges and decorations. What does the USMC reg define as such under the law. Just cause the tag says made just for the USMC doesn't meet the legal definition of "distinctive part". But that is the army's interpretation, since we don't really wear badges, and other unnecessary add on to our uniforms etc it isn't necessary to define what makes our uniform, because we all see it as a uniform. When you are quoting law, is is very much necessary to define what makes up a uniform or distinctive parts of a uniform. "We all see it that way" is a far cry from a legal standard, and will get you laughed out of the courtroom. Just like the blues or Alpha, they are a uniform even without the accoutrements added. Not legally. Take the buttons and insignia off a Army or USMC dress blouse and legally they are not a uniform or distincive part thereof. The same law applies to all branches, and the Army reg defines what the law means. And unless the USMC has a written reg that says otherwise since it is the same Federal law the court will use the Army standard. I will ask once again, what is the USMC reg? How does the USMC define "distincive part"? Legally, not "how you all see it". Are you aware of any court decisions that define "distinctive part" the way you do, or any regs that do? What, other than "we all see it that way" do you have to back up your interpritation of the law? Please enlighten us. BTW, the DRMS defines distinctive part the exact same way the Army does, DOD system wide, when it comes to sales of uniforms.... so evidently that is the DOD definition as well [:)] [i][red]13.Decorations, Badges, Service Awards, Medals, Ribbons, Distinctive (metal) Buttons and Other Insignia. a. Purchaser is advised that Decorations, Badges, Service Awards, Medals, Ribbons, Distinctive (metal) Buttons and Other Insignia are being offered for sale with the following legal restrictions: (1) 18 USC 704 governs the wear, manufacture, and sale of military decorations, medals, badges, and their components and appurtenances, or their colorable imitations. (2) 18 USC 701 governs the manufacture, sale, possession, and reproduction of badges, identification cards, insignia, or other designs prescribed by the head of a U.S. department or agency, or colorable limitations of them. b. The statutory provisions are codified in 32 CFR 507.[/i][/red] [b]DRMS-I 4160.14, Volume V, Chapter 6[/b] They do not define a blouse or pants or hat as a "distinctive part". Under the Federal statute you quote it is NOT illegal for a civilian to wear MARPAT, so long as they do not have any distinctive insignia. Remove the embroidered EGA or cover it up and you are A-ok. It would be illegal, however, to add a piece of insignia form ANY branch to it. Purple Heart- Illegal to wear Marsmanship Badge- Illegal to wear Stripes- Illegal to wear Oak Leaf Cluster- Illegal to wear, even by itself. Dress blue Jacket with all distintive insignia and buttons removed- Legal (but in very poor tatste) to wear USMC Cover- legal without insignia Marpat- legal without insignia New USMC boots- legal (I have several of the prototypes around here somewhere..) Bottom line, quit telling people it is illegal to wear MARPAT.. it is not. It may be in poor taste to buy a set before all the Marines that need it have it, but not illegal. You may not like it, but it is legal. I have shown you where both the Army and the DOD explain the law to say so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2002 5:59:25 AM EDT
[#27]
All I know is General Jones told syscom to make a "Distinctive Marine Corps Uniform" If the uniform is distinctive, why are the part not distinctive?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2002 8:03:34 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: All I know is General Jones told syscom to make a "Distinctive Marine Corps Uniform" If the uniform is distinctive, why are the part not distinctive? Something can be visually distinictive while not meeting the legal standard for a distinctive part. A set of Army Class A's with the insignia removed is still visually distinctive, you can still tell it is an Army uniform, but not Illegal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2002 8:19:14 AM EDT
[#29]
For all I care, you wannabes can go out and buy yourselves a set of Dress Blues.
Why not pick up a Silver Star and a MOH while you're at it? If you want to play dress up, and put on a uniform that others HAVE TO EARN THE RIGHT TO WEAR. Go ahead. You'll look like an ass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2002 9:53:03 AM EDT
[#30]
I pulled this from another post, but who is worse: the non-Marine wearing ega marpat, or the Marine who bought extra pairs and are selling them to them on Ebay to these non-Marines, especially when they in such a short supply?
Who deserves the beat-down in this case? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2002 1:25:12 PM EDT
[#31]
Put it this way...
A Lieutenant in our Battalion was relieved from his command, because he was wearing an Expert Rifleman badge, and he only rated a Sharpshooter Badge. Wear it if you wish, but you'll look like a wannabe. Or worse. What ever happened to honor? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2002 1:36:39 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: All I know is General Jones told syscom to make a "Distinctive Marine Corps Uniform" If the uniform is distinctive, why are the part not distinctive? When i was a kid, (late 1970's) I remember the Marines had their own camouflage uniform. I remember when BDU's were fielded, you could still recognize a Marine from a Solider because of the distinct difference in pattern. My guess is the General wanted to re-establish the distinction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2002 1:41:13 PM EDT
[#33]
QCMGR They didn't have any of the Navy blouses in but here are some of the NSN for Woodland and Desert digital Navy Covers Large Desert 8405014969940 Woodland 840500nsh1012 The woodland one is a little odd, but that what was in them. Grandshooter The Marine Corps policy and the Army's are totally different your service feels the need to define what is a uniform and what are parts, we take the approach, that it self evident and only the people who define what "is" means would really need to define what uniform parts are. Moondog Honestly, the Marine is much worse than the civilian. The Marine who sells them is lacking in honor, the Corps is very big in integrity I have been on courts-martial before for some that have lied, they deserve to have all their fellow Marines know what they did. A civilian, nothing should happen other than them being told that its somewhat disrespectful to wear a uniform they never earned, some will say your right some will assert every right they have and not listen. That's life |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2002 2:22:44 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: QCMGR They didn't have any of the Navy blouses in but here are some of the NSN for Woodland and Desert digital Navy Covers Large Desert 8405014969940 Woodland 840500nsh1012 The woodland one is a little odd, but that what was in them. I thought you meant they made a uniform that did not have the "digital" EGA, i.e., a different textile run w/o this feature. I have seen the covers w/o the EGA. The Marine Corps policy and the Army's are totally different... I do not think that is necessarily true. You cannot compare the Army to the Marines. You can compare the Rangers to the Marines and I guarantee they feel the same as you. When I was on active duty, I was in the 6th Cavalry. This unit goes back to the old west. It has a rich history and it was a unit to be proud of. As part of a Cav. Unit, we could wear the cross sabers as a branch. I thought it was an honor. A few years ago, I was at a Scottish festival in MI. I was wearing a Ft. Hood style Cav. hat when a guy approached also wearing a Cav. hat. He asked me what unit I served with and I told him it was the 6th. ACCB out of Ft. Hood. He looked at me strange and asked what Civil War battle they were in. At this point, I realized he was a Civil War re-enactor. I told him I was not a re-enactor, but an actual Cav. trooper having served with the 6th. "Air Cavalry" Combat Brigade. He understood, thanked me for my service, and went his way. I did not chastise him for wearing part of "my" uniform. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2002 5:05:22 PM EDT
[#35]
QCMGR
I see your point, but I don't think it is the same thing. Wearing your Cavalry hat as a symbol of pride is great. However, I didn't think that it was a issued uniform item(is it?). Unit pride is an outstanding thing, however, I don't know if the Air Cav has a sense of brotherhood like the Marine Corps. One of the problems with the Marpat situation, is that many who are required to have them don't, was there a similar problem with your hat? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2002 5:24:14 PM EDT
[#36]
The cloth without the Marine Corps emblem and USMC within it defiantly exists. The Navy Covers didn't have it and the new digital Kevlar covers don't either.
I agree there are units within the army that have a similar Esprit De Corps as the Marines. Some former members of those organization have expresses very similar sentiments about their head gear as we do about our uniform. But in that case they tend to say about their fellow service members shouldn't wear it. Interestingly enough many of those same member that were posted when their constituency was offended ridiculed Marines for speaking out when our was. But I wasn't talking about Esprit De Corps but the army's having to define what a uniform was and parts of a uniform were. The Marine Corps doesn't feel the need to do that we use the common sense test. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2002 6:16:17 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: The cloth without the Marine Corps emblem and USMC within it defiantly exists. The Navy Covers didn't have it and the new digital Kevlar covers don't either. That is different than a complete and separate digital uniform for the Navy w/o the embedded digital emblem. I agree there are units within the army that have a similar Esprit De Corps as the Marines. Some former members of those organization have expresses very similar sentiments about their head gear as we do about our uniform. But in that case they tend to say about their fellow service members shouldn't wear it. Interestingly enough many of those same member that were posted when their constituency was offended ridiculed Marines for speaking out when our was. But I wasn't talking about Esprit De Corps but the army's having to define what a uniform was and parts of a uniform were. The Marine Corps doesn't feel the need to do that we use the common sense test. Personally, I agree with you. I would never, or would I condone the wearing of a uniform or device not earned. Go to: [url]http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/stApIIch45.html[/url] and you will find the standard quoted for the USMC is the standard for all branches. Also, the a in Army is capitalized. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2002 6:45:16 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: But I wasn't talking about Esprit De Corps but the army's having to define what a uniform was and parts of a uniform were. The Marine Corps doesn't feel the need to do that we use the common sense test. How can you on one hand quote parts of the USC defining who can wear what, and then on the other hand say you don't need to define certain things because it's just common sense. How can you reasonably expect to have a law which says you can't do something, but is extremely unclear as to what that "something" is? Example: You are prohibited from being bad. The word bad will be defined as an action or act that fails the common sense test of not being good. Hmm... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2002 2:13:10 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Quoted: But I wasn't talking about Esprit De Corps but the army's having to define what a uniform was and parts of a uniform were. The Marine Corps doesn't feel the need to do that we use the common sense test. How can you on one hand quote parts of the USC defining who can wear what, and then on the other hand say you don't need to define certain things because it's just common sense. How can you reasonably expect to have a law which says you can't do something, but is extremely unclear as to what that "something" is? Example: You are prohibited from being bad. The word bad will be defined as an action or act that fails the common sense test of not being good. Hmm... Very easily, it says you cannot wear a distinctive part of a uniform, if you can see something and from its appearance you know it was from the uniform than its a distinctive part of the uniform. If you saw it and you couldn't tell it was a part of a uniform than it is not a distinctive part of a uniform. That is common sense, I am sorry but allot of this well it needs to be defined is the same thing the Clinton was doing with the definition of "is." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2002 3:08:16 AM EDT
[#40]
OK lets make this post usefull and so we can end this crap once and for all.
Can someone post exactly what is LEGAL. to where as a civilian as it applies to the MARPAT utility uniform. Perferably with exerpt from the marines REGS. So that we can have truth to this issue and not this "well I feel this way" BS. Lets show exactly what is legal and what is not. Then after that is said we can make an MARPAT FAQ put it on the site and elimitate the 20 posts a month asking about this. And the pissing match between enlisted folks and us lowly civilians |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2002 3:34:52 AM EDT
[#41]
STRLN,
I understand that as a Marine you feel that you're above the "Clintonian" lawyering of daily life. But if, as Marines, you don't need to do that, why, for example, do you have a defined chain of command? Isn't that common sense? Or why have any regs at all? Or why have JAGS? Maybe it's because Marines, like everyone, can't be expected to just follow "common sense" all the time, because it's not always "common". Second, you need to ask yourself: who were the regs regarding illegal uniform wear written for? Were they written to keep Marines from impersonating Marines? Were they written so Marines can feel special because they're the only ones who can wear a certain combination of clothes? Or were they there to keep non-Marines (or non-pickyourserveice) from impersonating Marines. If it's the former, then the reg is just a useless waste of paper. But if it's the later, then maybe the definition of "distinctive" needs to be spelled out, because while Marines may only need common sense to navigate through life, the rest of us pogues need a bit more guidance. Question: Let's say some dude is walking around in a woodland pattern uniform. He has all the "stuff" on, but on further inspection, the Eagle on his EGA is not an Eagle, but some other bird on a cheap chinese EGA knockoff. Is that EGA-like insignia distinctive? Af first glance he looks like a Marine in uniform, but it takes a bit of scrutiny to determine it's not a "real" uniform... ??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2002 4:05:10 AM EDT
[#42]
: Quoted: Very easily, it says you cannot wear a distinctive part of a uniform, if you can see something and from its appearance you know it was from the uniform than its a distinctive part of the uniform. If you saw it and you couldn't tell it was a part of a uniform than it is not a distinctive part of a uniform. That is common sense, I am sorry but allot of this well it needs to be defined is the same thing the Clinton was doing with the definition of "is." well, like it or not, it is the law. And if you are going to go around quoting federal code, be prepared to be pointed out when you do so incorrectly, or apply it incorrectly. Like Clinton????? I quoted hard and fast laws and regs, you said because "we all see it that way".... what approach sounds like Clinton?[rolleyes] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2002 7:27:32 AM EDT
[#43]
The law is vague on purpose. I would guess the closer you move to a military base, the more it becomes an issues. (Not because it is illegal, but because people may take offence to it). If you look at the hippies that disgraced the uniform in the late 60's and early 70's, you will find it has never been enforced due to first amendment issues.
STLRN, Lets say for the sake of argument I found a set that would actually fit. What would you say to me if I was at a public shooting range minding my own business enjoying a day of shooting. I only have the MARPAT, no rank, no boots, and a John Deer hat. Would you approach me and tell me I was being insensitive to Marines? Would you tell me to remove them? What would you do when I told you to f-ck off? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2002 7:32:02 AM EDT
[#44]
Speaking as a Marine...
...I probably wouldn't say anything, unless you were behaving in a disgraceful manner (drunk, high, loud, etc..). I would however, look upon you with distaste. I might even chuckle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2002 7:36:53 AM EDT
[#45]
You guys still fighting over clothes??
Clothes the taxpayers are kind enough to pay for ?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2002 7:42:12 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: Speaking as a Marine... ...I probably wouldn't say anything, unless you were behaving in a disgraceful manner (drunk, high, loud, etc..). I would however, look upon you with distaste. I might even chuckle. I would do the same. If it is a kid,(someone who may not know better), I will usually say something if they are being disrespectful. If it is someone older, it could be they are pissed with Uncle Sugar and I figure it may not be my fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2002 8:05:58 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: You guys still fighting over clothes?? Clothes the taxpayers are kind enough to pay for ?? Or so you would think. See below: [url]http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/775.html[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2002 8:37:34 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: Grandshooter The Marine Corps policy and the Army's are totally different your service feels the need to define what is a uniform and what are parts, we take the approach, that it self evident and only the people who define what "is" means would really need to define what uniform parts are. Well thats nice, but guess what.... it has no legal standard. Of course, your way is like Clintons approach to sex, since there is no standard you just deciede what is sexual relations and what is not..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2002 8:42:41 AM EDT
[#49]
Define Honor. It's not a "legal standard", but in the Marines, you're expected to know what it is.
It's not something that can be masured and tabulated. It just is. People should not wear a uniform, insignia, or medals that they don't rate. If someone can't understand this, there's really no point in trying to explain it to them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2002 9:04:20 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: Define Honor. It's not a "legal standard", but in the Marines, you're expected to know what it is. It's not something that can be masured and tabulated. It just is. People should not wear a uniform, insignia, or medals that they don't rate. If someone can't understand this, there's really no point in trying to explain it to them. Of course, but STLRN was claiming it is a violation of Federal law to wear it.. that is the only point I was argueing. If you didn't earn the EGA, you shouldn't wear it. But telling people weraing a camoflauge blouse is illegal is a loooooonnngggg stretch. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
