TexasCHLforum.com

What an idiot!.

GET OFF MY LAWN!

What is the context? I don't believe I have ever seen that scene.

jimlongley wrote:What is the context? I don't believe I have ever seen that scene.

He just ran the hoods off (or is in the process of doing it, I don't recall).

I don't remember exactly the point in the movie where that image is from, just thought it'd be entertaining. =\

On the prohibited weapons charge though:

Armor piercing rounds were found, when the officers got there and found the rifle, it was not loaded, but the magazine that was sitting next to the rifle was loaded with armor piercing rounds," said Austin Police Dept. Corporal Scott Perry.

Because of those military bullets, Yax was arrested for having a prohibited weapon. He is also charged with Aggravated Assault.

This implies that either the journalist/officer believes that "military" ammunition/calibers are illegal to posses. I'm hoping this is not the case, but clearly the arresting officer doesn't know that AP ammo is legally defined as ammunition used in handguns. At least they said magazine instead of clip.

Sec. 46.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(12) "Armor-piercing ammunition" means handgun ammunition that is designed primarily for the purpose of penetrating metal or body armor and to be used principally in pistols and revolvers.

Though I don't know the "rest of the story", it sounds like the guy was a jerk.

Question 1: Ignoring his bad judgement, how is an AR-15 a "prohibited weapon".

Question 2: How do you recognize "armor-piercing" ammo for an AR-15?

Question 3: Was it really "armor-piercing" ammo?

Question 4: Will the TSRA be looking into this, or, will the DA drop the weapon and ammo charges and simply stick to the real problem of chasing door-knockers down the street with a rifle?

All I have seen has a black band on the tip of the projectile. No matter, armor piercing is defined in TPC 46.01 as stated above. I think the LEO's are trying to push TPC 46.05 where it states armor piercing ammo is illegal, without looking at TPC 46.01 for the true definition. The DA should drop that charge and get him for assault.

They might indeed. I'm not sure why he wasn't charged with assault with a deadly weapon (or the actual legal term). Thats definitely the threat of harmful touching, with a weapon.

We should visualize this situation. We hear something outside. Look out and see someone with an AR (?) pointing it at the local kidlets.
Thats a gunfire response waiting to happen. Lucky no one was hurt.

frazzled wrote: We should visualize this situation. We hear something outside. Look out and see someone with an AR (?) pointing it at the local kidlets.
Thats a gunfire response waiting to happen. Lucky no one was hurt.

That's exactly what I thought. He's very fortunate that no one erhm..... aerated him.

Folks sure are touchy in Austin around their golf courses.

Sooo, the green tip lake city ammo that is sold at just about each and every gun show I've been to in 1000 round packs, with numerous police officers present mind you, is illegal??? Tsk, tsk officers... Is it that hard to consult with someone that has slightly more knowledge on the subject instead of just slapping someone with charges?

Keith B wrote:The DA should drop that charge and get him for assault.

Aggie_engr wrote:Sooo, the green tip lake city ammo that is sold at just about each and every gun show I've been to in 1000 round packs, with numerous police officers present mind you, is illegal??? Tsk, tsk officers... Is it that hard to consult with someone that has slightly more knowledge on the subject instead of just slapping someone with charges?

Keith B wrote:The DA should drop that charge and get him for assault.

A green tip is supposed to indicate a tracer round, and they are not illegal. However, I have seen tips on some painted black or green that is nothing but steel core.

See http://www.mosinnagant.net/t3p.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for a definition of tip colors.

EDITED TO ADD: Apparently Lake City 5.56 has a green tip armor piercing. It is still not illegal as 46.01 defines that armor piercing ammo designed primarily for use in a handgun is what is outlawed and 5.56/.223 is not primarily for use in a handgun.

I would bet someone looked at the rounds, saw colored-tips of some sort and jumped to a conclusion.

Did I say that I like to speculate?

Or maybe he had an AR-15 pistol?

I don't think the ag assault charge was appropriate either. Deadly conduct seems more fitting for what he did. But honestly if he gets a good lawyer he may beat it all. All he will have to do is show them the penal code definition of armor piercing and that should be dropped if it was a rifle. Secondly if he can introduce a shadow of a doubt that he never actually pointed the weapon at the children the other charge should be dropped. Keep in mind I think he was wrong as could be. But whether he necessarily did anything illegal remains to be seen. Stupidity has already been proven.

Actually come to think of it dropping all charges and then pleading guilty to disorderly conduct may be fitting. He did produce a firearm in public with intent to cause alarm.

gregthehand wrote:Or maybe he had an AR-15 pistol?

I don't think the ag assault charge was appropriate either. Deadly conduct seems more fitting for what he did. But honestly if he gets a good lawyer he may beat it all. All he will have to do is show them the penal code definition of armor piercing and that should be dropped if it was a rifle. Secondly if he can introduce a shadow of a doubt that he never actually pointed the weapon at the children the other charge should be dropped. Keep in mind I think he was wrong as could be. But whether he necessarily did anything stupid remains to be seen.

Actually come to think of it dropping all charges and then pleading guilty to disorderly conduct may be fitting. He did produce a firearm in public with intent to cause alarm.

And he certainly isn't Clint Eastwood.