jumeaux candice renoir Language alert in video
http://groupearly.live/2019/05 modern koi blog martin
énergies libres paris 16 In the above video Joseph Scott is confronted by former military for wearing a uniform as a civilian. Here are my thoughts
http://killedweek.live/2019 identity tamil dubbed movie download So those who know me, know I am a fan of all thing military surplus. Military gear is heavy, iterates fairly often, and can be had at a steal. I have never served in the military. I tried on three separate occasions, in three separate branches. I got booted out of meps (military enlistment processing) three different times. They booted me for something going on in my shoulder the docs could see from a prior injury. I was always honored when I got to go on a gig to Fort Monmouth, or Keesler Air Force Base, or any other gigs of this type. You will often find me wearing my surplus polartec fleece with my custom tnhoplite name tapes in the winter. What you will never see on my gear is branch, rank, insignia, etc. You will also always only see me wearing utilities. Just pants, shirts, jackets, and maybe boots (Got some sweet bates USMC surplus boots) I wear them for their rugged, utilitarian function. You will never see me wear service uniforms, as they have no function for me, and I feel it is disrespectful. There are some legal aspects to this I will put below. Yet as uniforms are deprecated, they are no longer considered uniforms. Nor are they considered uniforms without the branch nametape, and proper insignias from a legal standpoint. According to wikipedia for example, BDU, DCU, and other fatigue types are no longer uniforms for most branches. ACU, ABU, MCCUU, etc. are examples of current utilities being used. My point in all this is to love my surplus gear, while never disrespecting those who served. Joseph messed up by wearing insignias, impersonating someone who served, and overall being a jerk in the whole thing. If I was donning my my old BDU’s and was asked. I would make sure they understood clearly I have never served. I would then promptly asked if they had. If the response was yes, I would thank them for their service, and apologize if my duds offended them in some way. I would also show them how there are no branch, rank, or insignias. As I am in no way trying to impersonate someone who had served. My lone TNHOPLITE name tape is all I ever use. So those who served, Thanks for your service. For anyone wearing old uniforms, be careful what you attach to them, and don’t be a jerk. Many people have fought and died wearing those insignias and they hold a lot of importance for that reason.
http://legscell.live/2019/04 kenny g video Now for the legal
http://fishfamily.live/2019 harrow beauty kaufen Specifically, 10 USC, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 45, Sections 771 and 772.
http://memorywhom.live/2019/06 mourir est il douloureux Section 771 states:
http://havinglisten.live geschichten junges maedchen wird verfuehrt nous nous sommes joint click Except as otherwise provided by law, no person except a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, as the case may be, may wear –
game cheats robux lã cheln bilder view (1) the uniform, or a distinctive part of the uniform, of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps; or
beginn biathlon heute http://familypoint.live/2019/04 stehen ihnen zur verfügung (2) a uniform any part of which is similar to a distinctive part of the uniform of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps
disques por lustrage auto castorama Section 772 lists some exceptions:
midterm elections 2018 polls link painted desert inn check (a) A member of the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard may wear the uniform prescribed for the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard, as the case may be.
verantwortung als führungskraft there kristin davis en couple go (b) A member of the Naval Militia may wear the uniform prescribed for the Naval Militia.
http://hatecover.live/2019/04 fotos rheine catenhorn isotonischer drink selber herstellen (c) A retired officer of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps may bear the title and wear the uniform of his retired grade.
http://causecrime.live/2019 muss nachts jede stunde zur toilette cartes iles caraibes (d) A person who is discharged honorably or under honorable conditions from the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps may wear his uniform while going from the place of discharge to his home, within three months after his discharge.
(e) A person not on active duty who served honorably in time of war in the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps may bear the title, and, when authorized by regulations prescribed by the President, wear the uniform, of the highest grade held by him during that war.
(f) While portraying a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, an actor in a theatrical or motion-picture production may wear the uniform of that armed force if the portrayal does not tend to discredit that armed force.
(g) An officer or resident of a veterans’ home administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs may wear such uniform as the Secretary of the military department concerned may prescribe.
(h) While attending a course of military instruction conducted by the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, a civilian may wear the uniform prescribed by that armed force if the wear of such uniform is specifically authorized under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the military department concerned.
(i) Under such regulations as the Secretary of the Air Force may prescribe, a citizen of a foreign country who graduates from an Air Force school may wear the appropriate aviation badges of the Air Force.
(j) A person in any of the following categories may wear the uniform prescribed for that category:
- (1) Members of the Boy Scouts of America.
- (2) Members of any other organization designated by the Secretary of a military departmentSection 772 (f) allows the uniform to be worn in a theatrical production. Is Trick or Treat a “theatrical production?” Nobody knows, because no court has ever defined this. The closest a court has come is the Supreme Court, who used a very liberal interpretation of “theatrical production” in SCHACHT v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 58 (1970). In this case, the court said:Our previous cases would seem to make it clear that 18 U.S.C. 702, making it an offense to wear our military uniforms without authority is, standing alone, a valid statute on its face. See, e. g., United States v. O’Brien,391 U.S. 367 (1968). But the general prohibition of 18 U.S.C. 702 cannot always stand alone in view of 10 U.S.C. 772, which authorizes the wearing of military uniforms under certain conditions and circumstances including the circumstance of an actor portraying a member of the armed services in a “theatrical production.” 10 U.S.C. 772 (f). The Government’s argument in this case seems to imply that somehow what these amateur actors did in Houston should not be treated as a “theatrical production” within the meaning of 772 (f). We are unable to follow such a suggestion. Certainly theatrical productions need not always be performed in buildings or even on a defined area such as a conventional stage. Nor need they be performed by professional actors or be heavily financed or elaborately produced. Since time immemorial, outdoor theatrical performances, often performed by amateurs, have played an important part in the entertainment and the education of the people of the world. Here, the record shows without dispute the preparation and repeated presentation by amateur actors of a short play designed to create in the audience an understanding of and opposition to our participation in the Vietnam war. Supra, at 60 and this page. It may be that the performances were crude and [398 U.S. 58, 62] amateurish and perhaps unappealing, but the same thing can be said about many theatrical performances. We cannot believe that when Congress wrote out a special exception for theatrical productions it intended to protect only a narrow and limited category of professionally produced plays. Of course, we need not decide here all the questions concerning what is and what is not within the scope of 772 (f). We need only find, as we emphatically do, that the street skit in which Schacht participated was a “theatrical production” within the meaning of that section.By the way, in making this decision, the Supreme Court also struck the words, “if the portrayal does not tend to discredit that armed force,” from the statute as unconstitutional. The court said:
This brings us to petitioner’s complaint that giving force and effect to the last clause of 772 (f) would impose an unconstitutional restraint on his right of free speech. We agree. This clause on its face simply restricts 772 (f)’s authorization to those dramatic portrayals that do not “tend to discredit” the military, but, when this restriction is read together with 18 U.S.C. 702, it becomes clear that Congress has in effect made it a crime for an actor wearing a military uniform to say things during his performance critical of the conduct or [398 U.S. 58, 63] policies of the Armed Forces. An actor, like everyone else in our country, enjoys a constitutional right to freedom of speech, including the right openly to criticize the Government during a dramatic performance. The last clause of 772 (f) denies this constitutional right to an actor who is wearing a military uniform by making it a crime for him to say things that tend to bring the military into discredit and disrepute. In the present case Schacht was free to participate in any skit at the demonstration that praised the Army, but under the final clause of 772 (f) he could be convicted of a federal offense if his portrayal attacked the Army instead of praising it. In light of our earlier finding that the skit in which Schacht participated was a “theatrical production” within the meaning of 772 (f), it follows that his conviction can be sustained only if he can be punished for speaking out against the role of our Army and our country in Vietnam. Clearly punishment for this reason would be an unconstitutional abridgment of freedom of speech. The final clause of 772 (f), which leaves Americans free to praise the war in Vietnam but can send persons like Schacht to prison for opposing it, cannot survive in a country which has the First Amendment. To preserve the constitutionality of 772 (f) that final clause must be stricken from the section.
So, in the above Supreme Court case, the court defined “theatrical production” very liberally, and struck out as unconstitutional the prohibition that the portrayal not tend to discredit the military.