Legal Question in Constitutional Law in California

I was banned from a private Airsoft/Paintball field because my 18 year old son wore his Military camouflage without removing his branch tape. My son was contracted to the ARMY via ROTC at Oklahoma State University. He was home on break. The field owner cited the "Stolen Valor Act." The owner was wearing a military cap with the USMC Eagle, Globe and Anchor yet has never served in the Military. I played at the field at least twice a month prior to this for over a year and never had an issue. My son has since attended ARMY boot camp and is still at OSU to finish his degree.

Timothy D. Bingham


Asked on 10/10/11, 2:02 pm

2 Answers from Attorneys

The owner is wrong. First off, the Stolen Valor Act only applies to military decorations and medals, not uniforms or insignia. Second, it only makes FALSE display of decorations and medals, as well as sale, barter, etc., of them, and offense, not wearing them by people to whom they were issued or awarded. Third, the Stolen Valor Act has been declared unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of appeals in the U.S. v. Alvarez case, which arose in California and is therefore binding here and in all the other states in the 9th Circuit. It has also been declared unconstitutional in at least one other federal court, and no case has declared it constitutional that I have found. Unfortunately, unless the owner is discriminating against you and your son based on some protected classification such as race or religion, he is pretty much free to 86 you from his facility for any reason. So even though he is full of the proverbial beef byproduct, you don't have any recourse against him. If you want to mess with him, though, maybe you could tell him he's going to be sued under the ROTC members' protective provisions of the Veterans Affairs Act amendments of 1969 which makes it illegal to discriminate against ROTC members and their families in the provision of public accommodations or services. That's complete BS, but, hey, so is what he said. ;)

Read more
Answered on 10/10/11, 2:47 pm
Edward Hoffman Law Offices of Edward A. Hoffman

I agree with most of what Mr. McCormick said, though I can't endorse his suggestion to threaten a lawsuit you won't actually bring. The owner is wrong about the law, but he is still allowed to exclude people from the premises unless he is doing so in order to discriminate on the grounds of race, sex, religion, etc. Your question does not suggest that this is what happened, so you will have to respect the owner's decision unless you can persuade him to change his mind.

Read more
Answered on 10/10/11, 4:41 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Constitutional Law questions and answers in California