Are there any federal laws that prohibit a civilian from wearing part
of a military uniform that contains rank insignia or other unique
military devices?  I often see people wearing BDU style shirts with
the military name tags, rank, and so forth.  Assuming the people
aren't attempting to deceive or defraud, is it legal for them to do
so?  Please quote the relevant federal statute, if any.

I have wondered about this also. It's not uncommon to see young people
wearing various items of military garb in a casual, sometimes
disrespectful way. I have never heard of any arrests in my area
related to this, but it is against federal law:

"In accordance with chapter 45, section 771, title 10, United States
Code ( 10 USC 771 ), no person except a member of the U.S. Army may
wear the uniform, or a distinctive part of the uniform of the U.S.
Army unless otherwise authorized by law. Additionally, no person
except a member of the U.S. Army may wear a uniform, any part of which
is similar to a distinctive part of the U.S. Army uniform."

U.S. Army Publishing Agency: Army Regulation 670-1 
http://docs.usapa.belvoir.army.mil/jw2/xmldemo/r670_1/main.asp

Here is the applicable federal statute:

Sec. 771. - Unauthorized wearing prohibited 

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 -

(1) 
the uniform, or a distinctive part of the uniform, of the Army, Navy,
Air Force, or Marine Corps; or

(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

Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute: TITLE 10 > Subtitle A
> PART II > CHAPTER 45 > Sec. 771
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode10&STEMMER=en&WORDS=sec+771+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/uscode/10/771.html

The text of this statute, along with historical and revision notes,
may be found here:

United Stated House of Representatives, US Code: Title 10 USC Sec. 771
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t09t12+409+0++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2810%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%28771%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

( If the link above is truncated, please use this abbreviated link:
http://tinyurl.com/1pub )

If you would like to download all of US Code Title 10, Chapter 45 (in
.doc file format, for Microsoft Word,) you can do a right-click and
"save as" using this link:

United Stated House of Representatives, US Code: 10 USC CHAPTER 45 -
THE UNIFORM
http://uscode.house.gov/DOWNLOAD/10C45.DOC

My search strategy in locating this information consisted of various
combinations of the keywords "illegal," "civilian," "wear,"
"military," "uniform," and "insignia."

I hope this will meet your needs. If anything is unclear, or if any of
the links do not function, please do not hesitate to ask me for
clarification.

Best regards,
pinkfreud

---

Request for Answer Clarification by markbyrn-ga on 30 Sep 2002 18:27 PDT

Thanks for the citation, but it's a bit broad in scope.  Army/Navy
surplus stores do a booming business selling military uniforms,
military emblems, and the like.  By a straight reading of Title 10, it
seems like one could say it's illegal to wear even a military bomber
jacket or a military unit patch on a hat.  One wonders if the intent
of the law is to keep people from impersonating a military member as
opposed to keeping them from wearing anything that might be associated
with the military.  Perhaps there's been some additional government
policy that's been put out to clarify the section you quoted.

---

Clarification of Answer by pinkfreud-ga on 30 Sep 2002 18:53 PDT

I certainly agree that the statute is broad in scope. The only
additional matter on this subject that I have found is at the bottom
of the U.S. House of Representatives page linked above:

"The words ''Except as otherwise provided by law'' are inserted to
give effect to exceptions in other revised sections of this title and
to provisions of other laws giving such organizations as the Coast and
Geodetic Survey and the Public Health Service permission to wear
military uniforms under certain conditions."

This appears to be one of those laws that is enforced seldom, if at
all. While I have seen occasional cases where individuals were
prosecuted for fraudulently impersonating a member of the U.S.
military, I have never heard of this statute being enforced, in its
stricter sense, against anyone wearing clothing "similar to a
distinctive part of the [military] uniform." I have a khaki-colored
T-shirt with decoration resembling sergeants' stripes on the
shoulders. It never occurred to me that I was committing a federal
crime by wearing it.

---

Clarification of Answer by pinkfreud-ga on 30 Sep 2002 21:19 PDT

Thank you very much for the five-star rating! 

To satisfy my curiosity, I've put out some feelers to see whether any
of my colleagues may have heard of a case in which this law was
strictly enforced. If I get any interesting info on this, I'll post it
here as a "clarification."

In the meantime, I am going to be worrying about my favorite jacket,
which has five stars on each shoulder, and thus might put me at risk
of being prosecuted for impersonating a General.

---

Clarification of Answer by pinkfreud-ga on 01 Oct 2002 11:53 PDT

A fellow researcher who is an attorney has passed along this
interesting information:

I suppose the key case for your purpose is United States v Krakower
(1936, CA2 NY), where the accused was found at an army base wearing
the fatigue uniform of the Army--a suit of blue denim overalls,
indistinguishable from ordinary workmen's overalls except that the
buttons bore the words, "U.S. Army"

THE KEY, however, must be the statutory language: "the uniform, or a
distinctive part of the uniform" and I would then argue that the
offending piece of wearing apparel would have to qualify as a
"uniform" - a baseball cap is not a "uniform" since I don't believe
that any service recognizes it as such - it is merely a piece of
civilian attire that they can get away with wearing.

On the other hand, a Navy Pea Coat - - - would be a violation based
upon Krakower.

Please excuse the typographical error in my answer. "United Stated
House of Representatives" should read "United States House of
Representatives."

Sometimes the fingers race ahead of the mind. ;-)

I would suspect that the law is indeed loosely enforced.During the
protest movement in the 60's military clothing was worn as a form of
protest in itself.John Lennon performed a concert in New York in a
military jacket attended by Many law enforcemnet types and yet was
never busted for this.One would surmise that the wearing of such
apparel in the 60's would have provided a great opportunity for law
enforcemnet to stifle protest but I never once saw it done.