Bates uniform Boots

[SARMedTech]

Hawk-

Youre slowly cross the line from a reasoned, heated debate to a personal attack and you are verging on calling someone a liar.

You've made some statements, been proven wrong by regs and pubs so why dont yo just let it go as you didnt know exactly what you were talking about in this matter and let it die. I dont have a horse in this race and honestly couldnt care less. This sort of thing is one of the reasons my participation in CAP has dropped off.

Let is go. Its a frigging pair of boots and from what I can tell afgeo4 knows of where he speaks and you are a little fuzzy on the details.

[afgeo4]

CAPR 39-1
1-8. Where to Purchase Uniform Items.
e. Commercial Sources. (page 10)

All uniform items must display a USAF certification label. Members who
buy uniform items from other than AAFES MCSSs should check the reliability of the seller and make sure each garment has an USAF certification label. Members must be careful about buying from commercial sources. The articles may have been rejected by government buyers, may not conform to specifications, or may be in the process of being phased out. Uniform items that do not meet Air Force specifications are not authorized for wear. Each uniform item must have this label sewn or stamped on permanently: "USAF CERTIFICATE NO _______. A sample of this item has been inspected and meets or exceeds the quality prescribed by AF Specification _____."


Obviously, boots are a part of the uniform since they're covered in the UNIFORM regulation.

Hawk... please refrain from personal attacks. Your reasoning is YOUR reasoning and may not always be right.

Not a personal attack, but an analysis based on experience with people that have your viewpoint.

Now, as to my point, prove to me that the boots you own and wear have an actual certification label as you have described. I have boots that have been issued, and boots that have been purchased from various AAFES military clothing stores. None of those have a label to that effect. I seriously doubt that yours do either. If they do, post a photo and show the proof.

The point I'm trying to make is that there are plenty of boots that meet specifications of both CAPM 39-1, and AFI 36-2903 that aren't the "standard" military style boot. Many of those boots have been worn by active duty military with neither saftey issues or issues with the chain of command.

Many of what you would not consider a "military" boot have actual NSN's, and have been obtained and issued by military logistics organizations. Some don't have those numbers, and have been purchased as "local purchase" items and those acquisitions have been approved by the military.

I've know people that thought jump boots and jungles were illegal because they weren't issued. Yours is the same view, only mildly expanded. Anything that complies with CAPM 39-1 is acceptable. Limiting what is allowed based on personal opinion isn't. You have no foundation in the pubs to tell anyone otherwise.

I already quoted you the regulation. The only thing that complies with it is what complies with it. PERIOD. Don't make stuff up, please! I have enough do-dos confusing members with their opinions without you. The regs say what they say. Follow them or take it up with the authority that has the ability to change it. This isn't an issue of "view". I supplied you a fact. A quote out of the regulation. I don't care if you like or not. It doesn't change the truth.

BTW... both my Altama (USAF issued) combat boots and my Belleville ICBs that I purchased commercially have a white label on the inside of their tongues with codes. If you reference those codes you will see that they refer to specific certificates for those boots. Yes, you do have to do homework.

Now... my views have been supported by the proper excerpts from the proper regulation. Unless you have an excerpt from a reg to support your views, I suggest you drop the argument.

[Hawk200]

Now... my views have been supported by the proper excerpts from the proper regulation. Unless you have an excerpt from a reg to support your views, I suggest you drop the argument.

You still haven't presented me with anything useful, only your interpretation. You're going to believe what you want, and yes, I know, I can't stop you.

I will drop the argument, though. You're no longer worth the time.

[SARMedTech]

Now... my views have been supported by the proper excerpts from the proper regulation. Unless you have an excerpt from a reg to support your views, I suggest you drop the argument.

You still haven't presented me with anything useful, only your interpretation. You're going to believe what you want, and yes, I know, I can't stop you.

I will drop the argument, though. You're no longer worth the time.

Sorry but he presented you with regulations which are intended to countermand or at least quell the uprising caused by everyone having an opinion. I have Altamas that have the tags, yes, I have a pair of Bates that have mil-spec tags (Ive had them for some time, last time I checked that tag aint there on the newer Enforcers), I have a jeep cap with the tag, three pair of tru-spec BDUs, two boonies and a partidge in a pair tree, but he doesnt like to keep his tag on. Honestly, as I said before, this is one of the reasons I have all but dropped out of CAP after less than one year. This stupid-arse bickering. Ive got a pair of BBDUs, a pair of BDUs and a pair of blue and whites which I now (albeit temporarily) need a pair of grey pants for and and i will be wearing tru-spec TRUs with a sharp crease. Are they reg...probably not. Is alot of the stuff that goes on in the old local squad...no. But Im not sure that that is afgeo4's point. His point is, as I can read it, not so much that nothing shall be work without the tag (even thought that is how the reg reads) just that anything else is not reg. But hey, talk about being military....take a good hard look at our men and women in the sandbox. I did so recently with a photo of a company of Marines. There was more non-reg stuff there than you could order from a CHinese Army Navy Surplus.

Bates are the best lightweight tacticals on the market. I am not a combat soldier and will not wear combat boots. Be they be or be they aint regulations, anyone trying to get my Bates away from me will be wearing a bayonet between C1 and C2.

[pixelwonk]

all this anger. about boots.

Regardless what anybody feels about the frigging boots, these last few statements are the type of what we could do without around here.  Thanks.