Question about "Base commander" for MAWP

[ColErr]

Moving to CA in a couple months, but I will be on recruiting duty, so no base. So since I have no "base commander" does it need to be signed by the person in charge of the government property on which I work (In this case an E-7) or will I need to send it up higher?

As for Military need, "Maintaining proficiency with service style weapon in lieu of government issued weapon" might work?

[SilverTauron]

Moving to CA in a couple months, but I will be on recruiting duty, so no base. So since I have no "base commander" does it need to be signed by the person in charge of the government property on which I work (In this case an E-7) or will I need to send it up higher?

As for Military need, "Maintaining proficiency with service style weapon in lieu of government issued weapon" might work?

The MAWP regulations are poorly written, especially for members like yourself who work outside of their squadron's physical location. I'm curious to know how it works for members in TDY status in California from another base, or how someone at a Joint Base gets it processed when the Base Commander isn't even in the same Branch of Service!

[ColErr]

The MAWP regulations are poorly written, especially for members like yourself who work outside of their squadron's physical location. I'm curious to know how it works for members in TDY status in California from another base, or how someone at a Joint Base gets it processed when the Base Commander isn't even in the same Branch of Service!

Exactly. Especially since my Company will be a couple towns away, my Battalion is in Fresno (I'll be in the Bay Area) and Brigade isn't even in CA.

Also, not TDY, it will be a full on PCS, so I will be a resident for all intents and purposes

[RickD427]

Moving to CA in a couple months, but I will be on recruiting duty, so no base. So since I have no "base commander" does it need to be signed by the person in charge of the government property on which I work (In this case an E-7) or will I need to send it up higher?

As for Military need, "Maintaining proficiency with service style weapon in lieu of government issued weapon" might work?

SilverTauron is right on point with the MWAP statutes being very poorly written.

Over the last 15 years, the military has made major efforts toward consolidation. I'm not at all familiar with the Army and Air Force changes. I am familiar with the Navy's efforts and to a lesser degree the Marine Corps efforts.

The Navy established regions (Region Southwest, Region Northwest, etc) and placed the duties of Base Commander with those regions. The Marine Corps similarly has defined Base Commander for its major facilities (Camp Pendleton) and has assigned outlining units to bases, even though those units retain commanding officers for their operational functions.

It would have made a whole lot more sense if the statutes allowed a "Unit Commander" to sign off on the permit. A U/C will have much better knowledge of the service member and their duties. The way things are currently set up a Base Commander is very unlikely to have any knowledge of a particular service member.

There is no requirement for the Base Commander to be of the same service as the applicant. When I retired from the Coast Guard in 2003, I was assigned to a Navy unit and my "Base Commander" was a Navy Rear Admiral.

The application process requires the base commander to certify that you have a need of the weapon in connection with your military duties. The law seems to give some deference to the military, once the commander has done that, the DOJ doesn't have discretionary approval over the statement of need. At the same time, you need to be careful with the wording so that the base commander will concur. Your proposal could also be read as "I can't provide sufficient training to my personnel, so please allow him the AW so that he can train himself." Do you think the base commander would sign off on that one?

Of course, I also have to suspect the MAWP process was intentionally made difficult to reduce the number of permits issued, while maintaining the appearance that the permits are available to service members.

[SilverTauron]

Over the last 15 years, the military has made major efforts toward consolidation. I'm not at all familiar with the Army and Air Force changes. I am familiar with the Navy's efforts and to a lesser degree the Marine Corps efforts.
.

When I was in Big Blue, many units from other branches were "tenant units" to our bases. When I was stationed in Mississippi, a Marine training unit was stationed at my Air Force installation, as was a Navy group. With the DoD merging many units with other branches' bases, how can a Sailor or Marine posted at an Air Force base apply for a California MAWP when the signature authority isn't even in the member's Chain of Command?

Heck, that can happen even INSIDE of a service branch. My last post was at an Air Force squadron which operated as a tenant unit for ANOTHER Air Force Wing which actually ran the base. If my circumstance took place in CA, i'd end up asking a Colonel with minus zero knowledge of me or my mission for permission to import my own property! Not to mention i'd end up bypassing my own Chain of Command in the process-and we all know how our immediate superiors just LOVE being left out of the loop!

It would have made a whole lot more sense if the statutes allowed a "Unit Commander" to sign off on the permit. A U/C will have much better knowledge of the service member and their duties. The way things are currently set up a Base Commander is very unlikely to have any knowledge of a particular service member.
.

Indeed, this is how the DD Form 1314 ( correct if wrong) is structured. That's the form which authorizes a member to own firearms and ammunition, and its signature authority is derived from the member's direct unit commander.

There is no requirement for the Base Commander to be of the same service as the applicant. When I retired from the Coast Guard in 2003, I was assigned to a Navy unit and my "Base Commander" was a Navy Rear Admiral.

.

No, but it goes a long way to ensuring a signature is granted. Its bad enough the advanced officer ranks are so far removed from ground floor enlisted to make requesting a MAWP akin to asking a stranger to cosign for a car loan-but when the signature authority isn't even in the same branch of service, cross-discipline confusion makes matters worse. If the Marine commander of a base uses a regulation unfamiliar to Air Force and Army personnel for addressing paperwork, its a Charlie-foxtrot waiting to happen. Heck, the form might not even have the same name between the service branches!

Funny story to back this up:When I got discharged ( Honorably)and told my prior service Army aunt the discharge code I got in the Air Force on my DD214 , she freaked out. Turns out the Army and Air Force codes for "honorable discharge" are two different numbers, and the one I told her corresponded with "Psych Discharge" when she was in . We had a good laugh after it got straightened out, but it goes to show you how two branches can have entirely different ways of doing things.

Of course, I also have to suspect the MAWP process was intentionally made difficult to reduce the number of permits issued, while maintaining the appearance that the permits are available to service members.

Indeed.

[18Dmedic]

You'd have an easier time finding UBL's body

[Germz]

The signature is the easy part in reality, its the justification and getting the base commander to vouch on that justified necessity is the real difficult part. Then let home he/she doesn't change over...good luck getting it renewed.