Quoted: Wearing a Marine Corps shirt is fine, as long as you aren't out pretending to be a Marine. In fact, that policy works pretty well for uniform items like covers and such as well. Like one of the posters above said, perception is reality. If you are going to wear it, wear it while you are acting civilized.

Ok wasn't sure, a bunch of shirts were given to me thru the years and I only wear em at home.



Edit: All Your MARPAT page 3 are belong to me.

Quoted: Quoted: Wearing a Marine Corps shirt is fine, as long as you aren't out pretending to be a Marine. In fact, that policy works pretty well for uniform items like covers and such as well. Like one of the posters above said, perception is reality. If you are going to wear it, wear it while you are acting civilized. Ok wasn't sure, a bunch of shirts were given to me thru the years and I only wear em at home.

They're just shirts. Wear 'em anywhere you want.

Eventually, someone will ask about them. As long as you are honest, you are okay.

when all the services wore woodland BDUs, no one got all upset that civilians wore them too.
Yet for some reason, civilians now have to earn the right to wear them by enlisting.
When I was in the Army we wore woodland BDUs so I guess I am "allowed" to wear a pair of woodland BDU pants now that I am a civilian.
I wonder if I am "allowed" to wear the ACU pants I have because I got out before ACUs were used?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't really care for it BUT....we paid for it, we should be able to have it if we want it. I prefer multicam by far. The USMC paid for it's development, and individual Marines pay for the actual uniforms. Are you that blind, or did  you not stop to think before typing? The USMC has no income or source of revenue. They do not charge for their operations. Instead, they are fully paid for by the US taxpayer, and thus serve the US Taxpayer who elects the POTUS to represent them collectively. No wonder why we are heading into a nanny state with voters like your understanding on how our govenment works. Not blind at all. Nor did I fail to think before typing, although I didn't go into as much detail as was probably needed to make my point well. Simply paying taxes does not entitle you to anything other than the services that taxes cover. You want a Marine Corps? Great, your tax money makes that possible. Your taxes are broken up and part of the money goes to the Marine Corps to be spent in the way that they deem most fit. However, your taxpaying status does not equal ownership of everything government related. I'm sure a couple of dollars from my taxes go to buy gear for cops in town, but I don't feel that I should be able to walk into a store and buy an Albany Police Department badge. My grandparents' tax money in the 1950's financed a ton of nuclear research and development, but you don't see them asking for design plans for nuclear warheads. Hell, since you pay taxes and taxes indirectly pay the salaries of government employees, maybe the Marine Corps ought to have some guys come over and wash your car.

Being a Marine I will say this, the salary you pay for me and my brothers who wear the MARPAT is more than given back to you in the form of freedom.  Don't think we owe you a car wash or anything else because your tax money pays our salary.  Our taxes we pay go the same place yours do.

my dad lives at quantico and got my son this set of dcu marpat a while back.  the ACU's werent out then, but he has a set now.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't really care for it BUT....we paid for it, we should be able to have it if we want it. I prefer multicam by far. The USMC paid for it's development, and individual Marines pay for the actual uniforms. Are you that blind, or did  you not stop to think before typing? The USMC has no income or source of revenue. They do not charge for their operations. Instead, they are fully paid for by the US taxpayer, and thus serve the US Taxpayer who elects the POTUS to represent them collectively. No wonder why we are heading into a nanny state with voters like your understanding on how our govenment works. Not blind at all. Nor did I fail to think before typing, although I didn't go into as much detail as was probably needed to make my point well. Simply paying taxes does not entitle you to anything other than the services that taxes cover. You want a Marine Corps? Great, your tax money makes that possible. Your taxes are broken up and part of the money goes to the Marine Corps to be spent in the way that they deem most fit. However, your taxpaying status does not equal ownership of everything government related. I'm sure a couple of dollars from my taxes go to buy gear for cops in town, but I don't feel that I should be able to walk into a store and buy an Albany Police Department badge. My grandparents' tax money in the 1950's financed a ton of nuclear research and development, but you don't see them asking for design plans for nuclear warheads. Hell, since you pay taxes and taxes indirectly pay the salaries of government employees, maybe the Marine Corps ought to have some guys come over and wash your car. Being a Marine I will say this, the salary you pay for me and my brothers who wear the MARPAT is more than given back to you in the form of freedom.  Don't think we owe you a car wash or anything else because your tax money pays our salary.  Our taxes we pay go the same place yours do.

I'm a Marine too. Well, former Marine now. I'm currently in the National Guard while if finish school.

I completely understand the concept of taxes and what they pay for, hence my two long posts in this thread explaining that paying taxes doesn't earn you anything special from the military.

Quoted: Quoted: I don't really care who has Marpat camo. I'll sell mine to people if they are willing to pay enough for it. Really?  You want Mohammed Cameljockey going to the online store at Sportsman's Warehouse and ordering dozens of our latest issue uniforms? Not at all. Frankly, I think military uniforms should have the same restrictions for wear as police uniforms, and that their possesion should be limited to serving members of the military just for that reason. It is quite easy to dress up in a uniform, put a campaign cover on your head, and walk up to any recruit on any training base in the country and have him hand over his rifle. It has been done before. Access to bases is very easy, and with someone on the inside, you could steal all kinds of shit. The Manson Family managed to get a bunch of grenades from Camp Pendleton in the '60s by having someone on the inside steal them. Many guards only check the driver's ID, which could allow you to easily drop a carload of terrorists of anywhere on the base. Not having access to real uniforms could help prevent this, just as not having access to real police uniforms helps prevent people from easily pretending to be cops. Of course, military uniforms will never be restricted like that, due to the huge number of them in circulation.

I don't know where you are from but access to and wearing police uniforms is as easy if not easier than getting your hands on military uniforms. Police uniform parts, like shirts and pants are available over the counter, you can get leather and nylon belts and gear, imitation badges.  About the only thing that is hard to get is real badges and real patches, but the imitations,  and fakes are readily available and most folks don't know the difference.

And as far as getting on a base, I don't know where and when the last time you were on a base, but every one, other than strictly training bases, I've been on in the last few years have required ID from everyone.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't really care who has Marpat camo. I'll sell mine to people if they are willing to pay enough for it. Really?  You want Mohammed Cameljockey going to the online store at Sportsman's Warehouse and ordering dozens of our latest issue uniforms? Not at all. Frankly, I think military uniforms should have the same restrictions for wear as police uniforms, and that their possesion should be limited to serving members of the military just for that reason. It is quite easy to dress up in a uniform, put a campaign cover on your head, and walk up to any recruit on any training base in the country and have him hand over his rifle. It has been done before. Access to bases is very easy, and with someone on the inside, you could steal all kinds of shit. The Manson Family managed to get a bunch of grenades from Camp Pendleton in the '60s by having someone on the inside steal them. Many guards only check the driver's ID, which could allow you to easily drop a carload of terrorists of anywhere on the base. Not having access to real uniforms could help prevent this, just as not having access to real police uniforms helps prevent people from easily pretending to be cops. Of course, military uniforms will never be restricted like that, due to the huge number of them in circulation. I don't know where you are from but access to and wearing police uniforms is as easy if not easier than getting your hands on military uniforms. Police uniform parts, like shirts and pants are available over the counter, you can get leather and nylon belts and gear, imitation badges.  About the only thing that is hard to get is real badges and real patches, but the imitations,  and fakes are readily available and most folks don't know the difference. And as far as getting on a base, I don't know where and when the last time you were on a base, but every one, other than strictly training bases, I've been on in the last few years have required ID from everyone.

Building a police uniform that would pass scrutiny from a real police officer is much more difficult than putting together a military uniform that would look okay to a soldier or Marine.

The last time I was on a base was Friday when I went to MCLB Albany. I was a passenger in a car with no decal and I handed my ID card to the guard from the passenger seat. He looked it over and waved us through.

When I was driving my government car, I never even stopped at the gates. I just slowed down enough for the MPs to see my plates. A quick rental of a silver Chevy sedan and an after hours stop by any recruiting station is enough to get you easy access to any local base.

Camp Lejeune is just as easy to get in, as are Ft Stewart and Ft Benning. And Ft Gillem and Ft MacPherson(sp). Moody AFB and Warner Robins AFB can easily be entered in a car with U.S. Government plates. Camp Robinson, AR and the Air Force Base in Little Rock are the same.

I have been to all of these bases within the last year, and every one of them was too damn easy to get into. A fake ID card, a uniform, and a car with fake US Gov plates will allow you access damn near anywhere.

Fortunatly, a CAC card is pretty difficult to counterfit, as are .gov plates. Still, most bases have miles of unguarded perimeter. When I was at Camp Pendleton, they had major problems with illegal immigrants and kids from Oceanside going over or through the fence and getting access to the base.

so it's disrespectful for me to wear my space shuttle doorgunner t shirt, because i'm merely a space shuttle doorgunner trainee, and haven't earned the right to wear it yet?





you guys take this EGA shit WAAAY too seriously


it's a logo

Quoted: you guys take this EGA shit WAAAY too seriously it's a logo

I hear that alot from guys that haven't ever worked hard to earn a title or the right to wear a "logo" such as the EGA.

Quoted: it makes me vomit a little to see people disrespecting a uniform I had to earn the right to wear.

Dude, going to Ft. Jackson to become an Army potato peeler to avoid prison time doesn't count for much.

I don't follow your logic.

Oh yes, the Marines are horribly offended if anyone other than a member of the Corps possesses MARPAT. Oh, the humanity.

That explains why I got a couple sets mailed to me relatively cheaply (compared to exorbitant eBay prices) by an entrepreneur over at Parris Island with an offer to get more whenever as long as I've got the cash. 'Cause he's SO flipped out that I might not be a Marine and incensed that what he sent me might get used.

Wearing a USMC dress uniform and walking posing as a Marine or something is one thing. Wearing some stupid camo is another. You guys need to get over yourselves.

Quoted: Oh yes, the Marines are horribly offended if anyone other than a member of the Corps possesses MARPAT. Oh, the humanity. That explains why I got a couple sets mailed to me relatively cheaply (compared to exorbitant eBay prices) by an entrepreneur over at Parris Island with an offer to get more whenever as long as I've got the cash. 'Cause he's SO flipped out that I might not be a Marine and incensed that what he sent me might get used. Wearing a USMC dress uniform and walking posing as a Marine or something is one thing. Wearing some stupid camo is another. You guys need to get over yourselves.

Some Marines don't care, some do.

I sold some of my Marpat stuff in the EE here. I would sell more, but I found it easier to just return it to the PX and get my money back. Most people want to pay less than it costs in the PX anyway. I doubt the guys I sold it to were Marines. You can barely give away ACUs. My surplus sets are going to be with me until I get tired of them and throw them out.

I remember when they were in the preproduction stage, there were arguments over Corpsmen wearing Marpat, as they were not Marines, and therefore had not earned the EGA.

Like I said before, if you can get it, wear it. Nobody is going to confuse some idiot at the mall in Marpat with a real Marine. Most of you aren't really likely to run into anybody while wearing the stuff. If you are wearing camo in public, you have bigger things to worry about than people thinking you are a Marine.

However, I do feel that the Marine Corps is well within it's lane to restrict availability. They did design it, and, at least at one time, bought every single set made. Companies that manufacture it may be selling it now for all I know. The Marine Corps holds the copyright on the pattern. I find it somewhat silly that people still demand access to something just because $0.005 of their taxes went towards it's development.

ETA: I will say that my opinions on civilian ownership of Marpat have changed since it has become more widely available.

There was a time when Marines could not get Marpat items they needed and civilians were falling all over themselves to get it at any cost.

I had to get a member of this board who was stationed at Camp Lejeune to ship me a desert Marpat cover to Camp Pendleton so I would have a complete Marpat uniform to deploy to Iraq with. Meanwhile, there were dozens of them being sold for $40 a piece on Ebay by a guy whose wife worked at cash sales at Camp Pendleton.

At the time, I would have probably choked the shit out of a civilian wearing grey market Marpat. Now, I don't see as much of a problem with it, because no Marines should be suffering from availability issues.  

While I agree with many of the posters here, I wonder how the Marine Corps has the authority to own any copyright.

Without being an individual or a corporate entity, I wonder how a branch of the U.S. military is capable of having the right of PROPERTY and I really wonder how enforceable such property rights really are.

Definitely a legal issue to ponder.

Quoted: you guys take this EGA shit WAAAY too seriously it's a logo

No, it isn't a logo, it is much more.

Quoted: Quoted: you guys take this EGA shit WAAAY too seriously it's a logo No, it isn't a logo, it is much more.

Anyone that doesn't understand that a symbol can have more meaning than "just a logo" needs to look at our flag.

If you think it's, "just a piece of cloth," you've failed.

I can find marpat all day long, check the surplus store right outside of Quantico on Rt 1, also in the surplus store in Indianapolis right across the street from the old Naval Avionics facility.  Both places have MARPAT BDU's with a tag inside very similar to the tag in my Coyote Fleece that Peckam made.  

I understand the feelings of many of the Former Marines here on the board regarding their camo, but having spent a bit of time in a country where possession of anything Camo, in any pattern, including the Hip Hop purple and orange patterns,  without a military or police ID was considered Treason, Im perfectly fine with anyone being able to buy and own anything they want.  Even if they are a posing assclown.

I know alot of Marines do not like other Services unless you are a Corpsmen wearing their boots either.  A Major I worked with talked to in a stern voice, a Army Col who was wearing MC Boots because they are Marine boots.  First he asked when were you in the Corps if you said never he gave you a talking too.  Col had new boots on that afternoon.

Quoted: Quoted: I completely understand the concept of taxes and what they pay for, hence my two long posts in this thread explaining that paying taxes doesn't earn you anything special from the military. After having seen a box of magazines that the military smashed with a mallet, rather than allow it to be sold to civlians as surplus, sorry my trust in the military to wisely spend my money is running pretty thin. Now after developing marpat I paid again for "ACU" to be developed which to my eye is obviously less effective. I work my ass off to give half my income to the government, I'm not convinced that every branch of the military needs a different kind of camouflage for morale reasons.

I agree with you 100% on that.

I'm stuck using ACUs now, and they are shit. In trying to be special, the Army stuck us all with a much less effective uniform.

Lot's of civilian contractors wearing MARPAT over  here with the EGA on it.

Quoted: While I agree with many of the posters here, I wonder how the Marine Corps has the authority to own any copyright. Without being an individual or a corporate entity, I wonder how a branch of the U.S. military is capable of having the right of PROPERTY and I really wonder how enforceable such property rights really are. Definitely a legal issue to ponder.

Keep pondering, it will come to you eventually.

Quoted: Quoted: While I agree with many of the posters here, I wonder how the Marine Corps has the authority to own any copyright. Without being an individual or a corporate entity, I wonder how a branch of the U.S. military is capable of having the right of PROPERTY and I really wonder how enforceable such property rights really are. Definitely a legal issue to ponder. Keep pondering, it will come to you eventually.

I'm not a legal scholar, not really my place to make that comment.

Quoted: Quoted: it makes me vomit a little to see people disrespecting a uniform I had to earn the right to wear. Dude, going to Ft. Jackson to become an Army potato peeler to avoid prison time doesn't count for much. I don't follow your logic.

Maybe not, but how about going to Iraq for a year?

Besides, logic ain't got much to do with this, I was just indicating how I feel about the issue. I don't like seeing beanbags wearing my uniform, whether they're civilians or not. Maybe I'm neing an asshole about it, but I still think that we should maintain some standards, otherwise we're just an armed mob in digital camo. I guess I'm just a dumbass for thinking that it's a privelige to serve my country...

the EGA is not a "badge"



one should no more assume someone wearing clothing embossed with the EGA is a Marine, than one should assume someone wearing a bills #32 is OJ simpson



clothing sold to the public, is suitable to be worn by the public

I have a set of MARPAT cammies.  I feel absolutely no shame for wearing them when going out to field to hunt or shoot.  I took off all the patches as stuff that came with them.  The only identification left on them is the dang EGA that I can't take off.  Only a fool would actually think I was in the military without any name patches or other ID on the camo.  Therefore the possibility of impersonating a member of the USMC is nil.  

I got them because I think it is a great camo pattern.  I also got them for relatively little money (~13$ for the top and ~$16 for the pants).

Also, I am doing a bit of good to the Marines by creating a market for the used camo.  I bought the used shirt from an ex-marine who got back from the sandbox on ebay.  The pants were from a military surplus store on ebay as well.  If the camo was "outlawed" for a civy to wear, then the Marines who don't see a problem with selling them, would have a FAR smaller market to sell their old used stuff.  

Quoted: Frankly, I think military uniforms should have the same restrictions for wear as police uniforms, and that their possesion should be limited to serving members of the military just for that reason. It is quite easy to dress up in a uniform, put a campaign cover on your head, and walk up to any recruit on any training base in the country and have him hand over his rifle. It has been done before. Access to bases is very easy, and with someone on the inside, you could steal all kinds of shit. The Manson Family managed to get a bunch of grenades from Camp Pendleton in the '60s by having someone on the inside steal them. Many guards only check the driver's ID, which could allow you to easily drop a carload of terrorists of anywhere on the base. Not having access to real uniforms could help prevent this, just as not having access to real police uniforms helps prevent people from easily pretending to be cops. Of course, military uniforms will never be restricted like that, due to the huge number of them in circulation.

Those who make the argument that crimes have been committed by people impersonating a soldier by wearing camo, so we should outlaw camo, are the same types of people who say that guns are used in crimes, so they should be outlawed.  It is ridiculous to think that if someone wanted to commit a crime, they still couldn't get their hands on a set of camo on the black market.  Laws should be made to hold people who commit crimes accountable, not the entire law abiding country.  I am all for harsh punishments for people who impersonate a soldier to commit crimes.  I am also completely for very harsh punishments for people who commit crimes with guns.  I am completely against gun control laws limiting the rights of people who have not committed any crime.  Same for possible laws against camo wearing...  

Hate to burst some of your bubbles, but here you go.

Where you go to buy just about anything...like it or not..

Quoted: Quoted: you guys take this EGA shit WAAAY too seriously it's a logo No, it isn't a logo, it is much more.

a seagull sitting on a beach ball wishing he was in the navy?

Quoted: I have a set of MARPAT cammies.  I feel absolutely no shame for wearing them when going out to field to hunt or shoot.  I took off all the patches as stuff that came with them.  The only identification left on them is the dang EGA that I can't take off.  Only a fool would actually think I was in the military without any name patches or other ID on the camo.  Therefore the possibility of impersonating a member of the USMC is nil.   I got them because I think it is a great camo pattern.  I also got them for relatively little money (~13$ for the top and ~$16 for the pants). Also, I am doing a bit of good to the Marines by creating a market for the used camo.  I bought the used shirt from an ex-marine who got back from the sandbox on ebay.  The pants were from a military surplus store on ebay as well.  If the camo was "outlawed" for a civy to wear, then the Marines who don't see a problem with selling them, would have a FAR smaller market to sell their old used stuff.   Quoted: Frankly, I think military uniforms should have the same restrictions for wear as police uniforms, and that their possesion should be limited to serving members of the military just for that reason. It is quite easy to dress up in a uniform, put a campaign cover on your head, and walk up to any recruit on any training base in the country and have him hand over his rifle. It has been done before. Access to bases is very easy, and with someone on the inside, you could steal all kinds of shit. The Manson Family managed to get a bunch of grenades from Camp Pendleton in the '60s by having someone on the inside steal them. Many guards only check the driver's ID, which could allow you to easily drop a carload of terrorists of anywhere on the base. Not having access to real uniforms could help prevent this, just as not having access to real police uniforms helps prevent people from easily pretending to be cops. Of course, military uniforms will never be restricted like that, due to the huge number of them in circulation. Those who make the argument that crimes have been committed by people impersonating a soldier by wearing camo, so we should outlaw camo, are the same types of people who say that guns are used in crimes, so they should be outlawed.  It is ridiculous to think that if someone wanted to commit a crime, they still couldn't get their hands on a set of camo on the black market.  Laws should be made to hold people who commit crimes accountable, not the entire law abiding country.  I am all for harsh punishments for people who impersonate a soldier to commit crimes.  I am also completely for very harsh punishments for people who commit crimes with guns.  I am completely against gun control laws limiting the rights of people who have not committed any crime.  Same for possible laws against camo wearing...

There isn't any right for civilians to wear military uniforms. We do havea constitutional right to own guns. There is a difference between controling guns and controling access to uniforms.

I don't think for a second that camoflauge should be outlawed. However, I don't see a real need for civilians to have military uniforms. If the pattern is so great, surely it can be used to make clothing that does not resemble military uniforms.

I don't even have a problem with uniforms being in circulation if they are modified in a manner that allows them to be identified as being something other than a regular uniform.

MARPAT would be great if they eliminated the Black color in the pattern.

Quoted: 4.  Go to MCRD either PI or SD, graduate and earn the right to wear it.

Now people have to "earn the right" to wear camouflage?

This is not a Medal of Honor.  It's not a Purple Heart.  


It's a fabric pattern.

Quoted: I don't really care who has Marpat camo. I'll sell mine to people if they are willing to pay enough for it. Really?  You want Mohammed Cameljockey going to the online store at Sportsman's Warehouse and ordering dozens of our latest issue uniforms?

What, now our national defense comes down to "security through obscurity"?  Who's running this show, Microsoft?

Restricting sales of Marpat to keep it out of the hands of terrorists is as good (and effective) an idea as enacting gun control to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Quoted: Anyone that doesn't understand that a symbol can have more meaning than "just a logo" needs to look at our flag.

Uh huh.  Look at the tag sewn into that flag.  Says "Made in China".  America is more than a symbol.


People need to get some perspective here.  There is a great, big, wide chasm separating the people who simply wear components of military clothing and those who would attempt to impersonate a member of the armed forces.

I have an M-65 field jacket, with liner and hood, that was bought at a PX.  Has an embroidered patch for my last name, but no unit insignia or anything like that.  I think I've been asked one time about whether I am in the army, and I explained "Nope, but the person who gave it to me for Christmas was."

Quoted: trimmed There isn't any right for civilians to wear military uniforms. We do havea constitutional right to own guns. There is a difference between controling guns and controling access to uniforms. I don't think for a second that camoflauge should be outlawed. However, I don't see a real need for civilians to have military uniforms. If the pattern is so great, surely it can be used to make clothing that does not resemble military uniforms. I don't even have a problem with uniforms being in circulation if they are modified in a manner that allows them to be identified as being something other than a regular uniform.

So are you proposing a massive shift to the constitution and legal system to a pattern like Japan and Mexico.  Right now, if something isn't specifically prohibited it is legal.  In Mexico and Japan, if the law doesn't specifically allow something it is illegal.  Having spent a little time in Japan, I can assure you we don't want to go there.

Quoted: There isn't any right for civilians to wear military uniforms. We do havea constitutional right to own guns. There is a difference between controling guns and controling access to uniforms.

Nonsense.  The 1st amendment has been interpreted to protect freedom of expression.  What you choose to wear is and definitely should be a method of self expression.

Why does everyone seem to think that if there isn't an expressed constitutional right to do something, the government can criminalize such behavior?