Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SMIDSY on November 06, 2006, 01:58:35 AM
-
heard today that anti-tank rifles are legal in Texas, can this be true?
-
Only in Waco.
And even the fed'l gov't disagreed!
:D
-
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.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Only in Waco.
And even the fed'l gov't disagreed!
:D
:noid
-
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.
-
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
(http://www.antitank.co.uk/ptrd-front2.jpg)
-
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.
-
you can own those in montana
-
Originally posted by Debonair
you can own those in montana
how much and is there a waiting period? its nearly squirrel season.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
(http://www.millenniumsend.net/MCN/weapons/images/g_lahti.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Suave
(http://www.millenniumsend.net/MCN/weapons/images/g_lahti.jpg)
say ello to my littel fren.
-
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)
-
It's possible to purchase the M95 Barret (or a very similar rifle) in Texas. Cabela's in Fort Worth has two of them. Box of ten .50 rounds was around $20.
-
Originally posted by red26
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
HOORAY!! i will be visiting the Great State of Texas in late December (so shine up them stars fellas.) hope to blast me some tiny rodents.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
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.
Tanks might be invulnerable to.50 cal fire but it's still a threat to softer skinned military vehicles even though they may give adequate protection from small arms fire.
When the NZ army were deployed in Bosnia in the mid 90s the likelihood of pot shots from .50 cal weapons being taken at their M-113s was a real concern and led to a mad scramble to find bolt-on armour plating for them, which they eventually got by borrowing it off the Israelis.
-
LOL... anti tank rifle.... What the politicians are afraid of is "anti armored limmo rifle"
With the rash of anti tank weapons being used in crimes to date (that would be zero) it is obvious that these modern (mostly made in the 1920's) high tech weapons should be banned.
Semi auto's like the lahti were quite common and until the late 60's you could order one out of a catalogue for about $100.. the ammo was about a buck a round. Thousands were sold and are still out there.
A dentist we knew bought one and we took it out to a gravel pit and shot 10 rounds through it. was fairly accurate at the 500 yards or so we were shooting at.
Why would there be any reason to ban such a weapon?
lazs
-
Why shouldn't citizens be allowed, under the guarantee of the second amendment, to possess any and all weapons in use by our military?
-
well..... one could interpret "arm" to be personal portable weapons. The lahti and such are border line... they are 6'long or longer and really, a two man weapon but I do agree... any weapon should be allowed so long as it violated no ones rights.
High explosives in a residential area should be illegal for instance.
lazs