Please be advised that, in response to the current civil unrest occurring throughout the country, Washington Wing Commander, Col Shelly Norman, has directed that CAP members ARE NOT to wear USAF-style uniform combinations (blues, ABUs, BDUs, flight suits) until further notice. This is to prevent our members from being mistakenly identified as National Guard, Law Enforcement, etc.
For Senior Members, the CAP polo shirt with gray pants is the recommended solution for any upcoming or ongoing missions, including COVID-19 missions. Cadets, who normally only wear USAF-style uniforms, should wear black shirts with khakis or jeans while participating in CAP service missions.
A temporary directive from the Wing Commander is NOT a new Uniform Regulation.
It's just an instruction for a set period of time.
When is that allowed?
"2.10.4. Determine acceptable civilian clothing for wear at CAP activities and may prohibit clothing
that is offensive for moral, legal, or safety reasons."
Quote from: Eclipse on June 03, 2020, 04:47:51 AM"2.10.4. Determine acceptable civilian clothing for wear at CAP activities and may prohibit clothing
that is offensive for moral, legal, or safety reasons."
So the USAF uniform is OFFENSIVE? Wow.
Quote from: JohhnyD on June 03, 2020, 11:18:23 AMQuote from: Eclipse on June 03, 2020, 04:47:51 AM"2.10.4. Determine acceptable civilian clothing for wear at CAP activities and may prohibit clothing
that is offensive for moral, legal, or safety reasons."
So the USAF uniform is OFFENSIVE? Wow.
SAFETY REASONSIt doesn't have to hit all the categories. They aren't saying the uniform is offensive, they're saying they are doing it for safety.
The various branches did it back in 2001 as well after 9/11 and there have been other instances since at local levels. Uniformed members were not allowed to drive to and from the base in uniform for safety reasons, then they'd change once they were on base.
Cops do it all the time, drive to work, get dressed and then on the streets.
Quote from: DocJekyll on June 03, 2020, 11:27:35 AMQuote from: JohhnyD on June 03, 2020, 11:18:23 AMQuote from: Eclipse on June 03, 2020, 04:47:51 AM"2.10.4. Determine acceptable civilian clothing for wear at CAP activities and may prohibit clothing
that is offensive for moral, legal, or safety reasons."
So the USAF uniform is OFFENSIVE? Wow.
SAFETY REASONS
It doesn't have to hit all the categories. They aren't saying the uniform is offensive, they're saying they are doing it for safety.
The various branches did it back in 2001 as well after 9/11 and there have been other instances since at local levels. Uniformed members were not allowed to drive to and from the base in uniform for safety reasons, then they'd change once they were on base.
Cops do it all the time, drive to work, get dressed and then on the streets.
"...and may prohibit clothing that is offensive ..." That clause is clear. Not my Wing, not my Monkey, but wow!
Right now, military and law enforcement uniforms are offensive to some, and they don't want our uniform to be confused with actual military and law enforcement and cause undue harm to our members. This isn't the first time these restrictions have been put in place, and it won't be the last time.
Quote from: JohhnyD on June 03, 2020, 11:18:23 AMQuote from: Eclipse on June 03, 2020, 04:47:51 AM"2.10.4. Determine acceptable civilian clothing for wear at CAP activities and may prohibit clothing
that is offensive for moral, legal, or safety reasons."
So the USAF uniform is OFFENSIVE? Wow.
I assume you're intentionally ignoring Eclipse's emphasis of the word "safety" in that sentence.
Which is really kind of trollish behavior.
Quote from: NIN on June 03, 2020, 01:19:56 PMQuote from: JohhnyD on June 03, 2020, 11:18:23 AMQuote from: Eclipse on June 03, 2020, 04:47:51 AM"2.10.4. Determine acceptable civilian clothing for wear at CAP activities and may prohibit clothing
that is offensive for moral, legal, or safety reasons."
So the USAF uniform is OFFENSIVE? Wow.
I assume you're intentionally ignoring Eclipse's emphasis of the word "safety" in that sentence.
Which is really kind of trollish behavior.
Dissenting opinion: I think he's got a legit point there, actually (that he isn't trolling). The difficulty arises because there are two parts to the sentence from the reg: the first half is the one (I believe) that Eclipse is primarily referring to, "determine acceptable civilian clothing for wear". The second part which is at issue is that qualifier following the word "and". If that second phrase did not contain the word offensive, we'd have no problem.
I think it is unfortunate that there's an implication there (unintentionally) that the USAF uniform is offensive (and I don't think that was Bobs intent, at all). Yet, thats how it read to me as well.
So, teammates, I think we get the why. Let's not pull apart over torturing the reg.
V/r
Spam
Quote from: Spam on June 03, 2020, 01:54:36 PMQuote from: NIN on June 03, 2020, 01:19:56 PMQuote from: JohhnyD on June 03, 2020, 11:18:23 AMQuote from: Eclipse on June 03, 2020, 04:47:51 AM"2.10.4. Determine acceptable civilian clothing for wear at CAP activities and may prohibit clothing
that is offensive for moral, legal, or safety reasons."
So the USAF uniform is OFFENSIVE? Wow.
I assume you're intentionally ignoring Eclipse's emphasis of the word "safety" in that sentence.
Which is really kind of trollish behavior.
Dissenting opinion: I think he's got a legit point there, actually (that he isn't trolling). The difficulty arises because there are two parts to the sentence from the reg: the first half is the one (I believe) that Eclipse is primarily referring to, "determine acceptable civilian clothing for wear". The second part which is at issue is that qualifier following the word "and". If that second phrase did not contain the word offensive, we'd have no problem.
I think it is unfortunate that there's an implication there (unintentionally) that the USAF uniform is offensive (and I don't think that was Bobs intent, at all). Yet, thats how it read to me as well.
So, teammates, I think we get the why. Let's not pull apart over torturing the reg.
V/r
Spam
I'll do you one better. There is no implication regarding USAF uniforms. The paragraph Eclipse cited only applies to civilian clothing, not USAF-style or CAP-specific uniforms. Eclipse made a mistake by citing the safety part of that paragraph to support Col Norman's decision, and JohnnyD made the same mistake with his assumption.
Spam - you're correct the "and" introduces another authority, not necessarily connected to the former.
I'm not even going to address the ridiculous, "win the internet" assertion.
JohnnyD just wants to call out another "you can't, I won't, you can't make me situation in his wing..." Whatever, have at it.
A reasonable person makes a reasonable directive with the safety of the membership in mind, during a real-world scenario of civil unrest, and he wants to have a "Supreme Court of the Civil Air Patrol" argument about it.
What's even more ridiculous is that it's largely a moot point anyway.
Unless anyone has any new, respectful thoughts on this thread, locking it before chaos ensues.