Stolen Valor Law ruled unconstitutional

[FieldDiscipline]

Muay Thai's very own Bob Spour. Now he deserves it, making money off the thing, and slagging off the real deal.

 

[jks9199]

Interesting, thanks. I wonder why they do not prosecute?

I suspect that there may be a clue buried in 'otherwise provided in law'.

People have been wearing uniforms, or parts of them, for many years in the USA. Surplus stores do land-office business, teens routinely dress up in cammys and so on. Actors? How about veterans like me? I've been told that I *am* authorized to wear my uniform, so long as I wear it properly, to include conforming to height/weight and grooming standards. And yet, I often seen old veterans wearing their uniforms or parts of them with full beards, long hair, big bellies, and so on. Prosecute them too?

I think that perhaps no one is prosecuted under this law because it would be found unconstitutional quickly if challenged. The only case I could find for a person arrested and prosecuted for this was back in the 1950's, a guy prosecuted for wearing Air Force overalls on base; he was a civilian contractor, but not impersonating an airman.

However, I certainly stand corrected on my original statement.

If you read through the subsequent sections, you're entitled as a former Marine, honorably discharged. Similarly, there's an exception for actors & re-enactors. (And Boy Scouts!)

Why isn't it prosecuted more? Practicality, I think. Unless you're actually wearing the full uniform and presenting yourself as a member of the service for some reason... Also, like you, I don't think it'd pass a reasonableness test. For example, if I wear a shirt given me by a recruiter featuring the Eagle, Globe & Anchor of the USMC (a "distinctive part of the uniform"), I suppose I'm violating the letter... but not the spirit.

I think it's kind of like someone wearing a shirt that says "POLICE" on it... Unless they try to present themselves as a cop, they aren't impersonating the police.

 

[MBuzzy]

It is prosecuted pretty heavily in the right circles. Do a google search for wearing unauthorized medals or the like. There are plenty of cases. Where you really see it is when someone tries to pump up their rack by displaying a few extras or something that they don't deserve, and it is caught when people are standing around comparing and someone figures it out. It happened to a guy in a unit I was in, he was wearing a silver star that he didn't earn. The thing is, something like that gets hammered, but doesn't make news.

 

[MBuzzy]

There are some standards for how and when you can wear your uniform when retired. Those old guys don't have to conform to height/weight standards....but then some of them didn't "officially" retain their rank. At least, my understanding is that again "OFFICIALLY" meaning to the letter of the law, the only way that you can say Maj (ret) or SGM (Ret), is for certain ranks. I know that if I got out as an O3, I couldn't call myself a Capt or Capt (Ret), even if I had done my 20. You are only technically retired if you did your 20.

For standard honorable discharges, there are rules that will allow you to wear your uniform though.

 

[jks9199]

It is prosecuted pretty heavily in the right circles. Do a google search for wearing unauthorized medals or the like. There are plenty of cases. Where you really see it is when someone tries to pump up their rack by displaying a few extras or something that they don't deserve, and it is caught when people are standing around comparing and someone figures it out. It happened to a guy in a unit I was in, he was wearing a silver star that he didn't earn. The thing is, something like that gets hammered, but doesn't make news.

Wearing unearned medals and the like is different from simply wearing the uniform or part of it. I'm not aware of many prosecutions for simply wearing part of a military uniform by itself. Wearing even a service award that was never earned... yeah, that's prosecuted quite often.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It is prosecuted pretty heavily in the right circles. Do a google search for wearing unauthorized medals or the like. There are plenty of cases. Where you really see it is when someone tries to pump up their rack by displaying a few extras or something that they don't deserve, and it is caught when people are standing around comparing and someone figures it out. It happened to a guy in a unit I was in, he was wearing a silver star that he didn't earn. The thing is, something like that gets hammered, but doesn't make news.

That's military prosecution under the UCMJ. I was thinking more in terms of civilians being prosecuted for wearing a military uniform or parts thereof, which according to the USC cited is illegal. My reference was that surplus stores do big business selling old field jackets and cammys to college kids. I never hear of them being arrested for wearing them.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

There are some standards for how and when you can wear your uniform when retired. Those old guys don't have to conform to height/weight standards....but then some of them didn't "officially" retain their rank. At least, my understanding is that again "OFFICIALLY" meaning to the letter of the law, the only way that you can say Maj (ret) or SGM (Ret), is for certain ranks. I know that if I got out as an O3, I couldn't call myself a Capt or Capt (Ret), even if I had done my 20. You are only technically retired if you did your 20.

For standard honorable discharges, there are rules that will allow you to wear your uniform though.

We were always told in the USMC that we could still break out our old uniforms and wear them but we MUST adhere to both height/weight and grooming standards when doing so. Again, that's just what we were told. I don't have a cite.

From a practical point of view, for former enlisted (and not retired), their contracts are up, they're beyond the reach of the UCMJ. Officers of course are never 'out' of the military as I understand it. So orders that require former service members to adhere to height/weight and grooming standards may simply not be enforceable. Kind of a moot point. Don't do this or we'll...uh...nevermind. Just don't do it.

 

[MBuzzy]

After separation OR retirement, you are authorized to wear your uniform, but only for certain occassions, where it is proper to wear the uniform and the biggest recurring theme in the documentation is that you can't wear it in a manner that bring discredit to the uniform or the service that it was retired from. That also means that you can't wear it to events that would discret the service or the uniform.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

After separation OR retirement, you are authorized to wear your uniform, but only for certain occassions, where it is proper to wear the uniform and the biggest recurring theme in the documentation is that you can't wear it in a manner that bring discredit to the uniform or the service that it was retired from. That also means that you can't wear it to events that would discret the service or the uniform.

Well, never saw a prosecution of a civilian for that offense. I suppose it may have happened, but I can't think of an instance.

 

[CoryKS]

That's military prosecution under the UCMJ. I was thinking more in terms of civilians being prosecuted for wearing a military uniform or parts thereof, which according to the USC cited is illegal. My reference was that surplus stores do big business selling old field jackets and cammys to college kids. I never hear of them being arrested for wearing them.

Field jackets and cammies are allowed, provided that they do not have any insignia that would identify it as belonging to a particular service. Technically Joe Blow could wear a dress blue jacket, provided that he removed all the buttons and the chevrons. But it's not a good idea, as one of the dance coachs on "So You Think You Can Dance" found out. She actually had the insignia on it so its possible that she might have been prosecuted, but I imagine the services weigh that sort of thing against the PR fallout.

 

[zDom]

I think it sad that something as precious as a Silver Star would be up for sale in the first place.

It should be cherished by one who receives it and, after their passing, by their surviving family members.

If there ARE no family members, than it should end up in a local museum to be viewed in reverence by members of that community.

 

[Sukerkin]

I'm not so sure about the 'reverence' part, Dom, for I do not feel that making icons of symbols of war is the way we should be heading; of course if you mean respect for the valour of the man, then I quite agree without reservation.

It is my great shame that I lost my grandfathers medal as I child - I was too young to be entrusted with such a thing I think and I lost it whilst playing 'army' in the wheat fields . If that had not happened then it would never have been sold; as you say, such a thing should not happen unless someone is driven unto the direst need.

 

[Archangel M]

Interesting, thanks. I wonder why they do not prosecute?

It's a federal law...probably for the same reasons they don't enforce our immigration laws. :hammer:

 

[Tez3]

I think it sad that something as precious as a Silver Star would be up for sale in the first place.

It should be cherished by one who receives it and, after their passing, by their surviving family members.

If there ARE no family members, than it should end up in a local museum to be viewed in reverence by members of that community.

Sadly though people fall on hard times and have to sell their precious medals, it shouldn't be that way of course.