Pegcity said:I would be concerned that the uniforms could be purchased by hostile groups and sent to Afghanistan and used in ambushes. This is not acceptable at all.
What is the justification for having a real uniform, you do not need a real uniform for paint balling.
57Chevy said:I can see the problem there, and I'm sure the various unit patches/insigna can also be easily found.
The problem may not be the cause of theft though. The manufacturer usually produces in excess of
contracted quantities. Sometimes up to about 10%. If the buyer does not accept them then they are sold off.
Occam said:I can't see a manufacturer risking the loss of future contracts, as well as sanctions under ITAR, by selling off controlled items in excess of a contracted amount.
57Chevy said:I cannot see that it would be theft by military personnel. But that possibility exists also.
Charge 1: S. 114 NDA, stealing, when entrusted by reason of her employment, with the custody, control or distribution of the thing stolen.
Charge 1: S. 114 NDA, stealing when entrusted, by reason of his employment, with the custody, control or distribution of the thing stolen.
Charges 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: S. 114 NDA, stealing
57Chevy said:I cannot see that it would be theft by military personnel. But that possibility exists also.
57Chevy said:I can see the problem there, and I'm sure the various unit patches/insigna can also be easily found.
The problem may not be the cause of theft though. The manufacturer usually produces in excess of
contracted quantities. Sometimes up to about 10%. If the buyer does not accept them then they are sold off.
Chapeski said:If we are talking about the CADPat uniforms and such, the manufacturer is not permitted to sell any legitimate pieces (ex: anything that has been treated for the IR resistance) The legit items that are for sale on ebay would be stolen items. Unfortunately the level of stolen or "lost" kit that appears on ebay is excessively high. Reports are constantly sent to the MP's to deal with, however they don't have the manpower to recover all of the material.
Brasidas said:Fly by night e-bay merchants are one thing. Established, stable surplus stores sell this crap openly. Dropped by Supply Sergeant in Edmonton in the last couple weeks, could've picked up a tac vest, cadpat combats, bushcap and whatnot. I know I can do the same in Kingston. What kind of effort would it really take for MPs to drop by and say "This is against the law. Don't stock this. Here's a set of colour pictures on plain copy paper of the common stuff you can't stock. We'll be back to have a peek around in two weeks." ?
Chapeski said:I stop in at Supply Sergeant about once or twice a month. I have a habbit of checking the manufacturers tags, and not once have I seen legitimate CADPat uniforms for sale. I haven't taken a look at the TAC vests yet, maybe next trip in. I'd be able to tell pretty much instantly if it is real or a recreation. Remember, it's not illegal to sell CADPat style clothing, it just can't be the chemical treated IR resistant stuff. The tag on the inside tells it all.
AideMemoire said:in each case bits of supposedly 'controlled' kit wound up in civvystreet and there wasn't one ounce of illegal activity involved in its release.
AideMemoire said:Any security plan which absolutely relies upon 100% complete control of bits of kit is doomed to failure because of the sheer scale of issue and the number of different hands the kit has to pass through - each an opportunity for accidental loss, disposal due to unfamiliarity with disposal regs, 'doing someone a favour' and genuine human error. Unfortunately it's fairly easy for the government to adopt the position "it's illegal to own...(x-bit-of-kit)" despite the fact no illegal activity took place anywhere in the prior chain of ownership - which needlessly creates a new class of criminals with the stroke of a clueless pen.
The supply chain is immense, and the longer kit is out there - the more opportunities there are for control problems. I can think of many, many, many examples I won't bore people with - but in each case bits of supposedly 'controlled' kit wound up in civvystreet and there wasn't one ounce of illegal activity involved in its release. I think that MPs and local LEOs who think of everything as a binary proposition (one or zero, black or white) just really aren't standing far enough away from the picture to be able to see the whole thing. They have to take things at a case-by-case basis and have to prove illegal activity -- that's the job -- and to try to adopt the position that "well...it's illegal to own" is not doing that job, nor standing up for the rights of those same citizens most of us put the uniform on to defend to begin with. It's just convenient. And organizationally lazy. :yellow:
AideMemoire said:I can think of many, many, many examples I won't bore people with - but in each case bits of supposedly 'controlled' kit wound up in civvystreet and there wasn't one ounce of illegal activity involved in its release.