What a dog-rocket of biblical proportions!!

[Forever_frost]

I guess you missed these little points (highlighted) If I'm wearing it because I think it's neat for a costume party I'm not using it for commercial purposes.
You previous post about the DPD dressup game is wrong also. You can have the uniform on you just can't act like your a cop.

I guess you missed this:

Department of Defense and Military Seals are protected by law from unauthorized use, and these seals may NOT be used for non-official purposes.
However, the Military Services may approve the use of their Service emblem or coat of arms as a substitute on a case-by-case basis. There is no such substitute for the Department of Defense Seal, and there is NO optional graphic that would represent the Department of Defense.

Protected by law from unauthorized use and may not be used for NON OFFICIAL PURPOSES

[Forever_frost]

The SCOTUS says shut the fuck up.

No, they didn't. They struck down Stolen Valor, not the US Code. Put up or shut up. Show me the repeal of the law I stated.

[Forever_frost]

Tell you what sparky, wear a DPD uniform with badge and drive around. Let me know what DPD says.

[4eyedwillie]

Department of Defense and Military Seals are protected by law from unauthorized use, and these seals may NOT be used for non-official purposes.
However, the Military Services may approve the use of their Service emblem or coat of arms as a substitute on a case-by-case basis. There is no such substitute for the Department of Defense Seal, and there is NO optional graphic that would represent the Department of Defense.

Because of the wide range of specific requirements (material, size, color, etc.) desired for each individual requestor's project, DoD does not stock or provide emblems for such use. The production of emblems is the responsibility of each requestor. Final approval for use of Military Service emblems and additional information as to the design of the emblems, specific colors used and the availability of graphic masters or camera-ready masters can be obtained from the following offices:


FAQs ~ General Information

Q1: Are Service Seals public domain?

Graphic images and guidance on their use is available at www.defenselink.mil/faq/pis/sealuse.html

Q2: How do I obtain permission to use a service seal for commercial purposes?

Those wishing to use service seals (Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard and Department of Defense) for commercial purposes should contact the appropriate office listed at www.defenselink.mil/faq/pis/sealuse.html

Q3: How do I obtain permission to use a unit insignia?

The Institute of Heraldry does not grant permission to use an individual unit insignia or maintain a roster of names of unit commanders. The unit’s commander is responsible for granting permission to use unit insignia for commercial purposes.

I guess you missed these little points (highlighted) If I'm wearing it because I think it's neat for a costume party I'm not using it for commercial purposes.
You previous post about the DPD dressup game is wrong also. You can have the uniform on you just can't act like your a cop.

[racrguy]

The SCOTUS says shut the fuck up.

[Forever_frost]

Department of Defense and Military Seals are protected by law from unauthorized use, and these seals may NOT be used for non-official purposes.
However, the Military Services may approve the use of their Service emblem or coat of arms as a substitute on a case-by-case basis. There is no such substitute for the Department of Defense Seal, and there is NO optional graphic that would represent the Department of Defense.

Because of the wide range of specific requirements (material, size, color, etc.) desired for each individual requestor's project, DoD does not stock or provide emblems for such use. The production of emblems is the responsibility of each requestor. Final approval for use of Military Service emblems and additional information as to the design of the emblems, specific colors used and the availability of graphic masters or camera-ready masters can be obtained from the following offices:


FAQs ~ General Information

Q1: Are Service Seals public domain?

Graphic images and guidance on their use is available at www.defenselink.mil/faq/pis/sealuse.html

Q2: How do I obtain permission to use a service seal for commercial purposes?

Those wishing to use service seals (Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard and Department of Defense) for commercial purposes should contact the appropriate office listed at www.defenselink.mil/faq/pis/sealuse.html

Q3: How do I obtain permission to use a unit insignia?

The Institute of Heraldry does not grant permission to use an individual unit insignia or maintain a roster of names of unit commanders. The unit’s commander is responsible for granting permission to use unit insignia for commercial purposes.

[Forever_frost]

You do not need permission to wear trademarks for any civilian brand, just to produce and profit...why would you for government items?

These items can be purchased online or second hand easily. Just because it was once owned by the government doesnt mean it always is. If it did, surplus stores wouldn't exist.

Also, are medals and uniforms actually trademarked by the government? That would be news to me. I know the multicam pattern is only licensed to the government but owned by the inventing company.

Just for clarity, I dont think people should be allowed to wear my uniform...but I'll admit that stance is greedy and against my generally constitutionalist views.

No, but you do need permission to reproduce it and military medals and branch insignia are owned by the respective branch. Check out the link I provided. It's pretty neat. You have all the permission in the world to wear the cloth. You just don't have authorization to put it together. When you do, it becomes a uniform and covered under the law I provided. Same as if I wear a dark blue button up, no problem. If I wear black slacks and shoes, no issue. If I put them on together, not a thing wrong. I put a badge on that says DPD? THEN there's an issue. Taken individually, you are right. However you do not have permission or a right to wear the uniform (everything together) of a branch of the military in which you do not belong.

Which is why you'll never see me wearing the Marine dress uniform though it looks so much more neat than the Army one.

[racrguy]

You do not need permission to wear trademarks for any civilian brand, just to produce and profit...why would you for government items?

These items can be purchased online or second hand easily. Just because it was once owned by the government doesnt mean it always is. If it did, surplus stores wouldn't exist.

Also, are medals and uniforms actually trademarked by the government? That would be news to me. I know the multicam pattern is only licensed to the government but owned by the inventing company.

Just for clarity, I dont think people should be allowed to wear my uniform...but I'll admit that stance is greedy and against my generally constitutionalist views.

Yep, that's treason. Time to take you out back so we can reenact Old Yeller.

[exlude]

If they aren't issued clothing, you're right. As the military paid for those, they are, ultimately, the property of the US government. I'm pretty sure my boots still say "US GOV" on them. Those medals do actually say on the back of them (well, my few that I actually keep out do) Property of the US. Take those off and do with it as you will. All I'm saying is remove anything that is trademarked by the branch (insignia and medals) and you're golden. Copyright law is in the constitution. If you feel like making an outfit with your bare hands that looks identical to the uniforms, go for it. Don't use anything with a copy written image or medals ultimately owned by the government.

That simple, 100% in line with the constitution. If you'd like to do your own medals that look like the real ones, feel free to write to the Office of Heraldry for permission to use their trademarked emblems.

http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Un...Uniformed.aspx

You do not need permission to wear trademarks for any civilian brand, just to produce and profit...why would you for government items?

These items can be purchased online or second hand easily. Just because it was once owned by the government doesnt mean it always is. If it did, surplus stores wouldn't exist.

Also, are medals and uniforms actually trademarked by the government? That would be news to me. I know the multicam pattern is only licensed to the government but owned by the inventing company.

Just for clarity, I dont think people should be allowed to wear my uniform...but I'll admit that stance is greedy and against my generally constitutionalist views.

[YALE]

Except the military doesn't pay for dress blues. Marines have to buy them.

[Forever_frost]

What you're missing, which you would normally catch, is what gives the federal government the power to limit what you are allowed to wear? Which enumerated power is that? (These are the arguments I see you make consistently except when it comes to things like this.)

If they aren't issued clothing, you're right. As the military paid for those, they are, ultimately, the property of the US government. I'm pretty sure my boots still say "US GOV" on them. Those medals do actually say on the back of them (well, my few that I actually keep out do) Property of the US. Take those off and do with it as you will. All I'm saying is remove anything that is trademarked by the branch (insignia and medals) and you're golden. Copyright law is in the constitution. If you feel like making an outfit with your bare hands that looks identical to the uniforms, go for it. Don't use anything with a copy written image or medals ultimately owned by the government.

That simple, 100% in line with the constitution. If you'd like to do your own medals that look like the real ones, feel free to write to the Office of Heraldry for permission to use their trademarked emblems.

http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/UniformedServices/Uniformed.aspx

[exlude]

I am the constitutionalist. I fail to see how this violates free speech or expression. If you wish to wear a military uniform, you must remove insignia of the branch and cannot wear the medals. Now, you can parody it all you like however you cannot wear it with identifying marks marking it as belonging to the specific branch.

100% in line with the constitution.

What you're missing, which you would normally catch, is what gives the federal government the power to limit what you are allowed to wear? Which enumerated power is that? (These are the arguments I see you make consistently except when it comes to things like this.)

[racrguy]

Actually, Stolen Valor was adding another section to this law. Stolen Valor was struck down, this wasn't. Take it as you like.

You can't read.

[Forever_frost]

Actually, Stolen Valor was adding another section to this law. Stolen Valor was struck down, this wasn't. Take it as you like.

[racrguy]

Again, nope. Not unless you remove insignia and medals. ow if you would like to argue further, you are free to challenge this law in the Supreme Court. I believe that is what I am constantly told.

A law extremely similar was challenged, and shot down. You're just failing to see the similarities.

Someone can wear whatever the fuck they want to as long as it doesn't meet a very short list of restrictions, says the SCOTUS.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

UNITED STATES v. ALVAREZ
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 11–210. Argued February 22, 2012—Decided June 28, 2012

The Stolen Valor Act makes it a crime to falsely claim receipt of military decorations or medals and provides an enhanced penalty if the Congressional Medal of Honor is involved. 18 U. S. C. §§704 (b), (c). Respondent pleaded guilty to a charge of falsely claiming that he had received the Medal of Honor, but reserved his right to appeal his claim that the Act is unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding the Act invalid under the First Amendment.

Held:The judgment is affirmed. Pp. 3-18.
617 F. 3d 1198, affirmed.
JUSTICE KENNEDY, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, concluded that the Act infringes upon speech protected by the First Amendment. Pp. 3–18.
(a) The Constitution “demands that content-based restrictions on speech be presumed invalid . . . and that the Government bear the burden of showing their constitutionality.” Ashcroft v.American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U. S. 656, 660.

Content-based restrictions on speech have been permitted only for a few historic categories of speech, including incitement, obscenity, defamation, speech integral to criminal conduct, so-called “fighting words,” child pornography, fraud, true threats, and speech presenting some grave and imminent threat the Government has the power to prevent.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-210d4e9.pdf

The law you're citing is null and void, because if one was to be charged under that law all one needs to do is cite US v Alvarez. It's called legal precedence, water head.

They also didn't strike down the penalty, they struck down the portion that made it a crime to make the claim.

Work the Google on the internets machine. The days of being able to claim things and not be fact checked are over.