this: LINK

and this: LINK

The first is a a logo with no unit loyalty or combat pride connotation issues -- nor is it uniform insignia in the legal sense; the second carries both those burdens. I have no problem with the former; I don't even have a problem with the 1st ID patch being used. I would, OTOH, not like to see the 1st Mar Div, 82d, 101st or SF patches so used...

The legal problem will be the undoing of a IMO, necessary law.