Joseph McMillan;88377 wrote:
...GS-13—equivalent to an Army major—...
Correction: GS-13 is equivalet to a lieutenant colonel, O-5.
—Guy
Guy Power;88393 wrote:
Correction: GS-13 is equivalet to a lieutenant colonel, O-5.
—Guy
Why would it be necessary (or even desirable) for someone in charge of a government bureau of heraldry to be affiliated with the military?
The equivalency is to accomodate federal civil servants living overseas; it provides a base for family housing on military installations, cost of living, and for POW categories if captured during war.
—Guy
p.s.: someone in charge of a government bureau would be a federal civil servant on the GS scale ... unless he/she were SES (Senior Executive Service) .... which is equivalent to O7 (brigadier general) and above. We have some of each category in the AHS.
Guy Power;88395 wrote:
The equivalency is to accomodate federal civil servants living overseas; it provides a base for family housing on military installations, cost of living, and for POW categories if captured during war.
—Guy
p.s.: someone in charge of a government bureau would be a federal civil servant on the GS scale ... unless he/she were SES (Senior Executive Service) .... which is equivalent to O7 (brigadier general) and above. We have some of each category in the AHS.
Ah, the vagaries of government red tape…..
While there are times I believe it would be nice for the United States to have a branch of the government to deal with heraldic registries. I then also think like Joseph and wonder, is it any of the governments business? The real reason to desire a government run registry, is for protection of personal arms. Then you wonder if that heraldic authority is going to last anyway, in which case even if you did have your arms registered by that "official" registry when they first open…if it suddenly closes fives years later due to lack of funding, did your registry and the thousands of dollars you shelled out, count for anything? It would seem rather moot to me.
There are a lot of people who can’t afford to shell out several thousand dollars to register their arms with an authority. It doesn’t mean it isn’t worth while, or that you shouldn’t consider it when you are able…but for some people it’s just not going to happen. Not even because they aren’t good people, with a good work ethic. Some people simply will never make as much money as others, due to whatever circumstances (health, location, opportunities). Does that mean they should be cut out, and not have a right to bear arms? If that be the case, then only the upper class should bear arms since they’re the only ones who can easily afford it. In which case why don’t we just label them as nobility and be done with it while we run down that rabbit trail. While Europe has some excellent things to offer, including a lot of the key traditions of heraldry, let us not forget that as Americans…our ancestors left Europe for a reason. Not so we can sink ourselves into the same ridiculous ditch that puts nobility as being better, or more deserving of something than everybody else.
Don’t get me wrong, I am proud of my European heritage, and I deeply love much of the history of the continent. But I really am tired of trying to hold ourselves up to European standards, as if they’re superior in some way. Part of what make America great was that we paved the way, not hurried to catch up, or played copycat with the rest of the world.
Nick B II;88373 wrote:
@Denny
What I find most interesting about your argument is that you dismiss my basis for saying the government can register arms as a cop-out, and then say you wish the government would register arms.
You aren’t an easy man to agree with.
Nick
what are you talking about Nick?
i don’t care if i’m easy to agree with. my world does not go up or down based upon what people think of me especially when they don’t even know me or have ever taken the time to get to know me just as others shouldn’t with me.
that being said i also don’t want to go about offending people. i do not want to make their day bad or whatever. i have no desire to make their experience here horrible. etc. but i can’t bring myself to worry about if people get along with me or not. if i’ve learned anything over the last couple of years it’s that life’s too short for that.
as for what i think you’re talking about, i don’t recall if it was you who said that the government can do whatever they want as long as it’s not specifically prohibited or not but assume so now, i was speaking in reference to them creating federal bureaucracies for this and that and everything under the sun and using that logic as a cop-out when people raise the question…‘should the government have the power to do that?’
silly me thinks there’s a difference between a law (government protection) and a new federal bureaucracy. that’s what i wrote and what i meant. twist it to what you want to validate agreeing with it getting along with me or not. while i don’t want you to have issues with me i won’t lose any sleep over anyone agreeing with me or not.
besides, and i mean no disrespect here, but honestly if you have that much of an issue with me and what i post you are giving me too much power. i don’t deserve it and don’t want it. i am, after all, one small piece of the wheel here. sometimes i fit in and sometimes i don’t.
Caledonian;88379 wrote:
I’m sure that many Americans who make use of heraldry would be willing to do so; I would and I’m certain that I’m not alone. And as heraldry is used by businesses and corporations, as well as civic entities, there is a fairly broad market. certainly having ones arms officially recorded in a legitimate national heraldic register is preferable to having ones arms recorded by a body having no official government sanction or recognition.
(emphasis mine)
ok. as this reads to me, and i guess i can have this wrong, but appears to be the whole assumed vs. granted debate again. and this is the crux of the matter then, isn’t it? what is legitimate heraldry and what is not. we’ve had this discussion many, many times before. it has been my experience that only the most puritanical—not accusing you personally—of people think like this. assumed arms are just as "legitimate" as those registered, matriculated or granted by some foreign office of arms. Joe has posted in past on the validity of assumed arms in this debate. i leave that to him and smarter people than i.
(for the record and apparently in an attempt to confuse people, if i lived in a nation that already had a heraldic authority i’d make use of that. however, as i don’t i’m happy keeping it as is and only pushing for legal protection)
Donnchadh;88404 wrote:
(emphasis mine)
ok. as this reads to me, and i guess i can have this wrong, but appears to be the whole assumed vs. granted debate again. and this is the crux of the matter then, isn’t it? what is legitimate heraldry and what is not. we’ve had this discussion many, many times before. it has been my experience that only the most puritanical—not accusing you personally—of people think like this. assumed arms are just as "legitimate" as those registered, matriculated or granted by some foreign office of arms. Joe has posted in past on the validity of assumed arms in this debate. i leave that to him and smarter people than i.
(for the record and apparently in an attempt to confuse people, if i lived in a nation that already had a heraldic authority i’d make use of that. however, as i don’t i’m happy keeping it as is and only pushing for legal protection)
I believe you have misread me. I see nothing illegitimate in regard to the assumption of arms. I believe that this was the original method of aquistion in the first place and it is certainly preferable to arms being awarded on the basis of merit/the payment of fees, etc.
However, in order for a heraldic body/authority that registers people’s coats of arms to have any weight of legitimacy, I feel that it must operate as an office of the government in the country in which it is located. Otherwise it has no more authority than some disreputable enterprise such as AssumeArms.com which charges a fee for a worthless document and registration that has no official recognition or standing.
German heraldry seems to be getting along just fine with registration of personal arms by private societies and no government involvement.
In any case, in a federal system like ours "government" is not synonymous with "federal." Personal heraldry is of the same nature as real property, family law, and inheritance, all of which are dealt with in the United States at the state, not federal, level.
Since we’re beating this unfortunate dead horse again, I will come out and say the following (again):
1) To paraphrase a line from one of the best movies of all time: "Heraldic authority? We don’t need no stinking heraldic authority!"
2) If there were to be some such institution in the US, it would have to be at the State level.
3) I would argue that it is better to have legal protection by demonstrating first/earliest use rather than have a whole new (federal/state/county/city/HOA) government organization that runs the whole thing.
Joseph McMillan;88415 wrote:
German heraldry seems to be getting along just fine with registration of personal arms by private societies and no government involvement.
In any case, in a federal system like ours "government" is not synonymous with "federal." Personal heraldry is of the same nature as real property, family law, and inheritance, all of which are dealt with in the United States at the state, not federal, level.
Are trademarks and corporate logos registed on a state or federal level in the U.S.?
Caledonian;88421 wrote:
Are trademarks and corporate logos registed on a state or federal level in the U.S.?
Both. Federal registration of trademarks derives from the power to regulate interstate and international commerce. All the states also maintain trademark registries, and besides that there is such a thing as a common law trademark, to which you establish your right not by registration but by actual use.
Joseph McMillan;88423 wrote:
Both. Federal registration of trademarks derives from the power to regulate interstate and international commerce. All the states also maintain trademark registries, and besides that there is such a thing as a common law trademark, to which you establish your right not by registration but by actual use.
Of course, same thing applies to copyright law. You don’t have to file a registration of copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office, but doing so documents the fact that you do own the copyright to the material in question. Ergo, it would not be required for anyone to register their coat of arms with an official heraldic registry in order for them to claim the arms in question as their own (which their continued and uncontested use of the arms would establish); but an official heraldic registry would certainly help to establish the fact that they had filed a formal claim to the arms.
kimon;88369 wrote:
I would love it if there were legal protection of arms in the US but, I don’t think a "Federal Bureau of Heraldry" is necessary.
I think that this is the way to go.
As has been well noted here, the difficulties in establishing a “Chief Herald of the United States” are practically insurmountable, regardless of how “utopian” such an idea may feel to American heraldists.
Conversely, if some aspect of US intellectual property laws (trademark, patent, copywrites) were expanded to include legal protections for armorial bearings – then that’s really all you would need.
I am well aware of the problems with using trademark- or copyright-law to protect your arms.
http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Registration.Domestic#toc3
But those difficulties are vastly more likely to be overcome than is the establishment of a new government bureaucracy.
steven harris;88427 wrote:
I think that this is the way to go.
As has been well noted here, the difficulties in establishing a “Chief Herald of the United States” are practically insurmountable, regardless of how “utopian” such an idea may feel to American heraldists.
Conversely, if some aspect of US intellectual property laws (trademark, patent, copywrites) were expanded to include legal protections for armorial bearings – then that’s really all you would need.
I am well aware of the problems with using trademark- or copyright-law to protect your arms.
http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Registration.Domestic#toc3
But those difficulties are vastly more likely to be overcome than is the establishment of a new government bureaucracy.
I would have to agree. I, along with numerous other citizens of the United States, have registered armorial bearings with the U.S. Copyright office (imperfect as that may be) in lieu of there being any better solution to the problem of not having an official, government sanctioned, heraldic registry.