Senior Member can't wear his NRA Marksman award?

[JeffDG]

I don't need one that "authorizes" it.  That which is not prohibited is implicitly permitted.

That's literally the opposite of how it works.

OK, where's your bathroom authorization regulation then?  If not, I hope people hold you to your standard next mission.

[Cliff_Chambliss]

My impression is there are way too many folks too focused on uniform bling.  Look around, there are more than a few ribbons and badges authorized for cadets that are not allowed for seniors.  There are more than a few older ribbons and badges that were once authorized for seniors that have gone away.  SO WHAT!

There was a time that it seemed almost anything could be worn on the CAP uniform including overseas (combat patches), any and all marksmanship awards, Army Drivers Badge, Vietnamse Armor Advisor Badge, German Army Jump wings, German/NATO Master Gunner Badge and shoulder cord, one individual senior wearing high school JROTC ribbons. and I am sure there were others, many others.
SO WHAT!

There are people out there that need to remember "The man makes the uniform, the uniform does not make the man".

Forget the bling, do the mission.

[jeders]

Firearms training, of any kind, is prohibited for adult members of CAP,

Can you provide a cite for that prohibition?

1. Firearms. Civil Air Patrol members will not carry, wear or use firearms while engaged in Civil Air Patrol activities.

Firearms may be used under strict supervision as authorized in CAPR 52-16, Cadet Program Management.

So, since firearms may nut be used, and since the only general exception is provided in 52-16, and since that exception only allows training for cadets; senior members may not participate in firearms training in CAP.

[Flying Pig]

I don't need one that "authorizes" it.  That which is not prohibited is implicitly permitted.

That's literally the opposite of how it works.

When it comes to uniform regulations, if its doesn't specifically say you CAN then you CANT.  20yrs in CAP and served in two branches of the military and its always been that way. 

[Eclipse]

I don't need one that "authorizes" it.  That which is not prohibited is implicitly permitted.

That's literally the opposite of how it works.

OK, where's your bathroom authorization regulation then?  If not, I hope people hold you to your standard next mission.

Jeders beat me to it, see above.

[JeffDG]

I don't need one that "authorizes" it.  That which is not prohibited is implicitly permitted.

That's literally the opposite of how it works.

OK, where's your bathroom authorization regulation then?  If not, I hope people hold you to your standard next mission.

Jeders beat me to it, see above.

But wait.

You said you couldn't cite a regulation prohibiting firearms, and went on to say that if something wasn't specifically authorized, it was prohibited.  The fact that someone else COULD cite a regulation doesn't change the fact that your statement about "that which is not permitted is prohibited" was completely incorrect. 

I'm really waiting for your admission that your contention that things not authorized are prohibited was a complete and utter falsehood.

Alternatively, I'm still waiting for your bathroom authorization regulation.

[Eclipse]

I'm really waiting for your admission that your contention that things not authorized are prohibited was a complete and utter falsehood.

Don't miss a Dr's appointment hitting F5.  That is a correct assertion.

And I have to tell you, I'm tired of arguing about the argument.  Take it to Twitspace.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Jeff, you lost that argument, don't be a troll, stop arguing! Show that you are a mature senior member...

[JeffDG]

Jeff, you lost that argument, don't be a troll, stop arguing! Show that you are a mature senior member...

I asked for a cite of a regulation saying firearms training was prohibited.

Eclipse said there wasn't one, and said that if it wasn't permitted it was prohibited.  Both of those statements were patently and demonstrably false.   If the "if it isn't permitted, it's prohibited" line of reasoning was valid, then Eclipse would need to provide his regulatory guidance permitting him to use the bathroom.  This is called, in logical terms, taking an argument to its conclusion, and it demonstrates that the proposition is false and absurd on its face.

Jeders helpfully provided appropriate regulatory guidance prohibiting the practice.  Fine, it's prohibited.  But it's prohibited because the regulations prohibit it, not because there is no regulation permitting it.

[JeffDG]

I'm really waiting for your admission that your contention that things not authorized are prohibited was a complete and utter falsehood.

Don't miss a Dr's appointment hitting F5.  That is a correct assertion.

Where's your bathroom authorization regulation then?  If it's not permitted, it's prohibited, right?

[SamFranklin]

That which is not prohibited is implicitly permitted.

Can you cite a regulation that permits you to go to the bathroom during a mission?  By your logic, it must be prohibited then, right?

CAP does not prohibit leading cadets in group discussions about Ulysses, Naked Lunch, Howl, or Tropic of Cancer – four texts that have been banned by various communities over the years. As a former teacher, I'm not going anywhere near those texts below college level.

Just because a regulation doesn't prohibit a given activity does not mean that that activity is permitted in CAP. The bathroom break example is nonsense. Rules and regs can't anticipate every scenario, but neither do they address every scenario that the writer(s) could anticipate (ie: a need for bathroom breaks).

We need more discernment and temperance around here. 

[Luis R. Ramos]

But it's prohibited because the regulations prohibit it, not because there is no regulation permitting it.

So fine, the issue is settled. Prohibited because of a regulation. Now you are trying to turn it personal!

[JeffDG]

That which is not prohibited is implicitly permitted.

Can you cite a regulation that permits you to go to the bathroom during a mission?  By your logic, it must be prohibited then, right?

CAP does not prohibit leading cadets in group discussions about Ulysses, Naked Lunch, Howl, or Tropic of Cancer – four texts that have been banned by various communities over the years. As a former teacher, I'm not going anywhere near those texts below college level.

Just because a regulation doesn't prohibit a given activity does not mean that that activity is permitted in CAP. The bathroom break example is nonsense. Rules and regs can't anticipate every scenario, but neither do they address every scenario that the writer(s) could anticipate (ie: a need for bathroom breaks).

There are two potential legal models that exist within the world.

The English Common Law derived concept is called "permissive".  In that model, that which is not prohibited, is permitted.  So, unless there is a rule (statute, regulation, other directive) saying "Thou shalt not do XXX", then XXX is permitted implicitly.  The United States, the United Kingdom, and most of the Commonwealth operates under this permissive system.

The Roman Civil Code system is resrictive.  In it, that which is not permitted is prohibited.  In that model, unless there is a rule permitting something, then you may not do it.  So, unless there is a rule saying "Thou may do XXX", then you may not do it.  This model is common throughout much of continental Europe.

The difference between these two is not just terminology, there are deep philosophical differences between those who follow the two.  My bathroom example is actually one of the absurdities that happens in the restrictive system. 

If you want to argue that CAP is a "restrictive" model, then in order to overrule the default legal mechanism in the US, you need to cite a rule or regulation doing so.  For example, the Federal Aviation Regulations say that "Noone may act as Pilot in Command of a civil aircraft except as permitted in these regulations" (paraphrased).  That effectively reverses the system for anyone performing that activity.  I am aware of no CAP regulation doing so, and were such a regulation such as "No CAP member may perform any action while on duty except as authorized by these regulations." then CAP would be responsible for providing permission in the regulations for such things as the bathroom example.

We need more discernment and temperance around here.

Concur, and that's what I'm trying to demonstrate.  Perhaps some more information about how regulations and laws operate in the world would be helpful, and even asking people to back up their blanket statements with citations and evidence might be in order.

[JeffDG]

But it's prohibited because the regulations prohibit it, not because there is no regulation permitting it.

So fine, the issue is settled. Prohibited because of a regulation. Now you are trying to turn it personal!

No, I'm most certainly not.  It is a fundamental issue of the way society is actually structured.

If someone wants to claim a blanket prohibition on everything not explicitly permitted, that's absurd and false, and I'm going to call them on it because it's absurd and false.  Letting such absurdities go unchallenged is why old-wives-tales gain footholds.

[Flying Pig]

Uniform regs are not activities.   We are comparing apples and oranges with that analogy.  Senior Members/Adults CAN take the course.   But the NRA badge is not a uniform item that SMs can wear.   Uniform items very much are written approval.  If it doesn't specifically say you can wear it, then you cant assume that you can.  Thats really the issue.  Just because the 39-1 doesn't specifically say "Seniors cannot wear the USMC rifle qual badges" doesn't mean that I can.   It specifically means that I cannot because its not listed. 

[NIN]

There are two potential legal models that exist within the world.

The English Common Law derived concept is called "permissive".  In that model, that which is not prohibited, is permitted.  So, unless there is a rule (statute, regulation, other directive) saying "Thou shalt not do XXX", then XXX is permitted implicitly.  The United States, the United Kingdom, and most of the Commonwealth operates under this permissive system.

The Roman Civil Code system is resrictive.  In it, that which is not permitted is prohibited.  In that model, unless there is a rule permitting something, then you may not do it.  So, unless there is a rule saying "Thou may do XXX", then you may not do it.  This model is common throughout much of continental Europe.

The difference between these two is not just terminology, there are deep philosophical differences between those who follow the two.  My bathroom example is actually one of the absurdities that happens in the restrictive system. 

If you want to argue that CAP is a "restrictive" model, then in order to overrule the default legal mechanism in the US, you need to cite a rule or regulation doing so.  For example, the Federal Aviation Regulations say that "Noone may act as Pilot in Command of a civil aircraft except as permitted in these regulations" (paraphrased).  That effectively reverses the system for anyone performing that activity.  I am aware of no CAP regulation doing so, and were such a regulation such as "No CAP member may perform any action while on duty except as authorized by these regulations." then CAP would be responsible for providing permission in the regulations for such things as the bathroom example.

To bring things a little more full circle on the permissive versus restrictive model:

In the old days, before world wide instantaneous global communications, the Navy's model was "permissive."

A ship captain had a pretty wide framework within which to operate once he "sailed over the horizon."  Pretty much if there wasn't a specific rule preventing an action (ie. "Don't start a war with France, and don't subjugate native populations" or some such), it was within the captain's purview and authority.  Hence the "captain is the ultimate authority" kind of thing.

The Army, OTOH, was on more of a restrictive model. Because you had generals (and colonels and majors and captains) pretty much within visual range of each other down the chain of command, a subordinate commander might have had certain left and right limits to maneuver within, but he also has a lot of "you better ask first" kinds of things.  The Army tells you what you CAN do, in most instances, not what you CAN'T.

Of course, nowadays any commander's actions even 8,000-12,000 miles from the headshed are instantly seen and 2nd guessed, so there isn't a lot of incentive to stray beyond the range limits, or even maneuver close to the range limits, lest you get a "rocket from above."

[Eclipse]

There are two potential legal models that exist within the world.

The English Common Law derived concept is called "permissive".  In that model, that which is not prohibited, is permitted.  So, unless there is a rule (statute, regulation, other directive) saying "Thou shalt not do XXX", then XXX is permitted implicitly.  The United States, the United Kingdom, and most of the Commonwealth operates under this permissive system.

The Roman Civil Code system is resrictive.  In it, that which is not permitted is prohibited.  In that model, unless there is a rule permitting something, then you may not do it.  So, unless there is a rule saying "Thou may do XXX", then you may not do it.  This model is common throughout much of continental Europe.

The difference between these two is not just terminology, there are deep philosophical differences between those who follow the two.  My bathroom example is actually one of the absurdities that happens in the restrictive system. 

If you want to argue that CAP is a "restrictive" model, then in order to overrule the default legal mechanism in the US, you need to cite a rule or regulation doing so.  For example, the Federal Aviation Regulations say that "Noone may act as Pilot in Command of a civil aircraft except as permitted in these regulations" (paraphrased).  That effectively reverses the system for anyone performing that activity.  I am aware of no CAP regulation doing so, and were such a regulation such as "No CAP member may perform any action while on duty except as authorized by these regulations." then CAP would be responsible for providing permission in the regulations for such things as the bathroom example.

Are you going to quote Constitutional amendments next?  I'd go with the 18th.

What the "real world" does, as has been shown time and again, is essentially irrelevant in a CAP context.

Policy, precedent, and regulation are all in favor of my statement.  CAP operates in a restricted model.  That which is not granted, is not permitted.
For most standard, day-to-day activities and operations, the regulations are published as anticipated by the OPR staff, for everything that falls outside
that framework, prior approval is required.

There are more then a few ex-commanders and members who acted in the 'it doesn't say I can't" mode, and learned the hard way that they
in fact "can't".

The semantics and pedantry of this discussion are specific and also support that.

The comments about the bathroom are ridiculous and only serve to argue Ad hominem.

[JeffDG]

The comments about the bathroom are ridiculous and only serve to argue Ad hominem.

I love when people use latin phrases like ad hominem in such a way as it demonstrates they have no clue what it means.

But the question stands without any answer.  Probably because you realize you're wrong but refuse to admit same. 

There is no regulation permitting use of the bathroom, so your logic dictates that such use is prohibited.

[Eclipse]

There is no regulation permitting use of the bathroom, so your logic dictates that such use is prohibited.

Agreed - it requires a CAPF-OINEED2P

[Garibaldi]

There is no regulation permitting use of the bathroom, so your logic dictates that such use is prohibited.

Agreed - it requires a CAPF-OINEED2P

Followed in some cases, after the morning SAR briefing and coffee, the CAPF OINEED2BM.