Author Topic: Question for Texans  (Read 502 times)

Offline SMIDSY

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1248
Question for Texans
« on: November 06, 2006, 01:58:35 AM »
heard today that anti-tank rifles are legal in Texas, can this be true?

Offline DiabloTX

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9592
Question for Texans
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2006, 02:18:58 AM »
Only in Waco.

And even the fed'l gov't disagreed!

:D
"There ain't no revolution, only evolution, but every time I'm in Denmark I eat a danish for peace." - Diablo

Offline eagl

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6769
Question for Texans
« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2006, 02:44:16 AM »
Someone in Calif tried to get .50BMG classed as anti-tank or anti-armor so it would fit under existing 2nd Amendment violating legislation.  Not sure if it passed or not.

My point is that "anti-tank" needs to be clarified to see if it fits under existing laws.  The feds have energy guidelines for federally restricted weapons, and those generally cover any kind of heavy weapons.  If it tosses a heavy projectile fast enough to kill a tank, chances are it fits into a federal category that prohibits private ownership except under certain strictly regulated conditions.
Everyone I know, goes away, in the end.

Offline rpm

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15661
Question for Texans
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2006, 02:56:41 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Only in Waco.

And even the fed'l gov't disagreed!

:D
:noid
My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.
Stay thirsty my friends.

Offline Slash27

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12798
Re: Question for Texans
« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2006, 11:09:19 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by SMIDSY
heard today that anti-tank rifles are legal in Texas, can this be true?


Well duh. I drive a M48 medium tank to work and keep a M60E3 on me at all times. I used to have a quad fifty mounted on my roof but I took it to the deer lease.

Offline SMIDSY

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1248
Question for Texans
« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2006, 11:58:06 PM »
let me clarify what i mean by anti-tank rifles: man-portable, gunpowder propelled rifle that is designed to fire bullets at sufficient velocity to penetrate the armor of light armored vehicles.

example

Russian PTRD

Offline eagl

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6769
Question for Texans
« Reply #6 on: November 07, 2006, 04:17:16 AM »
That class of weapon probably exceeds some federal delivered energy limit or another, and if allowed at all probably requires some sort of hard to get permit that may have strict storage and usage conditions.

In other words, it's probably possible to own one of those legally but it could be very expensive and time consuming to get the required permits, and once you got the permits, there still may be other restrictions that would apply.
Everyone I know, goes away, in the end.

Offline Debonair

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3488
Question for Texans
« Reply #7 on: November 07, 2006, 05:19:28 AM »
you can own those in montana

Offline SMIDSY

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1248
Question for Texans
« Reply #8 on: November 07, 2006, 06:41:13 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Debonair
you can own those in montana


how much and is there a waiting period? its nearly squirrel season.

Offline red26

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1030
      • http://www.red25s.zoomshare.com
Question for Texans
« Reply #9 on: November 07, 2006, 07:00:07 AM »
Yes in Texas we can go out and by one of these no prob and no certin licence. They are around $1500 to $2000 here and just about any true gun store eather has one or can get it quick. Im from around Dallas my self. The small town of Chico is were I lived most of my life and there I have around 4 friends that have a 50 Cal. ANd they have no certin lincence at all and the sherrif there if the Deputy pulls us over he just looks at it in AHHHH so yup we can have one.:aok :aok :t
US ARMY LEAD THE WAY

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13958
Question for Texans
« Reply #10 on: November 07, 2006, 10:51:47 AM »
The .50 cal Barret could easily be lumped in with the so called anti tank rifle given that the round is heavy, powerful and can punch through armor. Technically so could any battle rifle with AP ammo. It's bogus and another BS situation but it could qualify just like the "Boys Anti Tank Rifle" did.

If a .50 cal could destroy tanks we wouldn't need Dragons, Hellfires, LAW's, TOW's, RPG's, DPICM, 105 mm, 120 mm guns since we could do it far cheaper and lighter with a.50 cal.

Sticking a name on something to vilify it like sniper rifle for any scoped rifle, or assault rifle because it has a pistol grip and or a "flash hider" is getting rather old. This bit about anti tank rifle is more of the same old drivel.
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline Suave

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2950
Question for Texans
« Reply #11 on: November 07, 2006, 05:25:57 PM »
Most anti tank rifles were only 8mm. Of course if you get that finnish 20mm rifle that can fire full auto you'll need the permit for full autos.

Offline Suave

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2950
Question for Texans
« Reply #12 on: November 07, 2006, 05:30:37 PM »

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
Question for Texans
« Reply #13 on: November 07, 2006, 05:39:18 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Suave


say ello to my littel fren.

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
Question for Texans
« Reply #14 on: November 07, 2006, 07:59:03 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by eagl
Someone in Calif tried to get .50BMG classed as anti-tank or anti-armor so it would fit under existing 2nd Amendment violating legislation.  Not sure if it passed or not.

My point is that "anti-tank" needs to be clarified to see if it fits under existing laws.  The feds have energy guidelines for federally restricted weapons, and those generally cover any kind of heavy weapons.  If it tosses a heavy projectile fast enough to kill a tank, chances are it fits into a federal category that prohibits private ownership except under certain strictly regulated conditions.



They didn't need to, they just got the governator to ban them. You now can't buy any kind of .50 BMG rifles in Cali.

Arnie saved us  from the rash of armed roberies with 5 foot long 50 pound rifles.


The only people who like the law are ignorant anti gun types who watch to many movies. (basicaly 95% of Californias who live in cities)