Friday, December 16, 2011

Texas gets a navy (again).

Although I have yet to find an official announcement, it seems the word is out amongst the fishing blogs: Texas is getting a navy again. From Lake St. Clair blog:
A few folks may remember the killing and shooting on Falcon lake down here. I know bass fisherman from Michigan like to fish the lake. The Sheriff down here requests you be armed. Well I am happy to let the tourist fishermen know the first Texas DPS Gunboat (There will be atleast 6) has been commissioned today. And yes, those are machineguns. Texas is not counting on the Feds anymore to protect bass fishermen or jet skiers on the border! Come on down and visit!
Cop, writing on Austin Bass Fishing forum:
First off, they don't have 50's. Gun mounts are a twin M240 (7.62) in the front, single mounts on the sides. Secondly, these things were built expressly for Lake Falcon and the border down by Brownsville.
They will train a bit on Lake Austin and Decker, but they will not be used to patrol the lakes here. That's APD and TCSO's job.
The state bought these mainly because the feds won't do a damn thing about armed incursions on Falcon. Really not intended for drug interdiction. Wasn't even part of the written proposal. This is a gunboat, pure and simple. (sorry to break the news to all you "drug war" guys)
Sad fact is, the use of them will be so hemmed in by ridiculous rules of engagement that they'll never fire a shot.
This is a growing trend. The Sons of Guns TV show just recently armed a patrol craft for a Louisiana sheriff department:
Now, on to what you saw in the first episode of this season. We were contacted to arm a sheriff’s patrol boat for duty on the Mississippi River petroleum corridor. The task included a dual mount with a MARK 19 grenade launcher and a 240 Bravo machine gun as well as a grenade/smoke grenade launcher. They wanted the right mounts and the right systems to defend the river.
When the job came down through Sheriff Gautreaux for the demonstration and up-arming of their 32-foot patrol boat, we were damn excited. They have a nice flotilla, a 27-footer in that same style, and probably a dozen other boats that they use. We wanted to make this one stand out. These guys in the sheriff’s office do everything from search-and-rescue, pulling drowned fishermen out of the rivers, pulling people out of treetops during flooding to dredging the rivers for bodies, drug interdiction and dealing with homeland security issues. They are a top-notch, professional organization.
Since I kind of take a military outlook on everything, we figured if you’re gonna arm up, then do it right. They wanted the ability to sink, destroy, and of course, to show that ability as a deterrent.
The sheriff and the colonel who run the river division both felt that they would have a steady firing platform off the rear for the fully automatic machine guns. They use a Barrett 82A1 on the bow and wanted to keep it there. The boat driver, who’s an old brown-water Navy hand just laughed when the question came up and said, “I can point the ass-end of this boat anywhere you want it. Just tell me what you want to hit.” OK, that kind of solved that.
Plus, it’s not the Mekong Delta, man, it’s the Mississippi Delta, so there’s slightly different forces at work here.
The region these men work in contains many heavily populated areas, and there’s almost always traffic on the river. When you’re cutting loose with a .50 cal. or even a .30 cal. on the water, the bullet can skip off and travel a long way. It may seem counter-intuitive, but sometimes you’re going to be a lot safer with a 40mm grenade launcher.
Well, I for one am certainly glad of THAT. Okay, Lake Falcon, under state jurisdiction, I can see. Those are nasty desperadoes down there. But if every riverine county in America is going to be in an ego-driven arms race for gunboats now, the only good I can see is that it represents more of that arms technology transfer from the military to within the reach and grasp of the armed citizenry. Other than that, the militarization of local police -- most importantly the militarization of the PSYCHES of local cops -- proceeds apace. Fellows that jet around in such craft are hard put to claim that they are "peace officers."
Here's the video of the Sons of Guns project:


Anonymous said...

The "Texas Navy" only works if they aren't afraid to pull the trigger!

Anonymous said...

Uh, oh. Time for the DOJ to sue Texas for protecting its borders and its citizens.

If U.S. Border Patrol Agent Diaz can't even arrest an illegal drug smuggler, how is a police boat going to be able to fire on them?

Bad Cyborg said...

All silliness aside, there really is a problem with what can properly be called pirates on falcon lake. Several people have been robbed and assaulted while fishing out there. Most people don't fish armed (fresh water fish so seldom attack fishermen) so they are sitting ducks for banditos from Mexico.

The main problem I see is the standard problem with relying on police to protect you and yours. When seconds count the police are just minutes away. Somehow I don't expect the pirates will sit idly by playing pinochle while you hollar for the cops and they come a runnin'. I'm not a fisherman but if I were and I wanted to fish falcon lake, I'd probably take both my Glock 22 and my FNAR semi-auto .308 win.

legal alien said...

My only question is whether the boat crews and their commanders will be Oath Keepers or Oath Breakers.

Can be either good news or bad news in the longer run

Anonymous said...

Is that a fiberglass hull? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Longbow said...

I don't believe that boat is for the purpose of protecting Texas from Meskin drug gangs.

I wonder what the Texas DPS response would be if it became common for Texas fishermen to carry a battle rifle, like an M1A, or an FAL, when they're out on the lake. That is the perfectly legal and natural answer.

I'll betcha a whole dollar right now, the DPS would spend more time harassing Texas citizens, telling them "You don't need to...", than interdicting Meskin gangs and illegal border runners.

Hell, Texas citizens going around acting like self-determined free men? We can't have that!

Anonymous said...

you're a snitch

Anonymous said...

Let's go hunting!!

Anonymous said...

That thing will use fuel at a rate which can be measured in Gallons/Mile and I wouldn't be surprised if it consumed 200 gallons/hour while on patrol. It makes no sense to spend that much money on a warship which costs $5000/day to operate (plus wages for the crew) if they won't allow the weaponry to be used.

Anonymous said...

The weapons on those boats will be used on you,if you do anything to interfere with the influx of future Obama Democrat voters!

Chuck Martel said...

I'm pretty sure states aren't constitutionally allowed to have navies. [Check it though. Make sure I'm not wrong about that.]

The only one that sorta' has one is Ohio. The Ohio Naval Militia uses its one boat to keep other boaters out of the line-of-fire of the Camp Perry impact area on Lake Erie.

Mattexian said...

Hey we're gonna need something to protect our waterways once we finally secede, after getting fed up with everything else (like some of us ain't already). I'd rather have the Texas Rangers on my international lakes like Falcon, stopping the smugglers, than wait for the Feds to do something; I'll die of old age first!

Anonymous said...

Whoever designed those armor plates for the 240 gunners wasn't thinking at all...

Look at the plates... They are straight up and down. No slant to them.

When on water, your opponent is going to be in another boat most likely, and will be shooting at the same height you are. So the enemy's rounds will be striking that plate head on. It will not be deflected.

Unless that plate is made out of something really high quality, that road is going right through. If the plate had an angle on it, it would give a much better chance for the road to deflect.

Anonymous said...

@ Chuck Martel: I don't know for sure, but Texas' status may be a little different than other States as they had an active fighting Navy before joining the union. All the Constitution says on the matter is that "Congress shall have provide and maintain a Navy" prohibition against the several States doing the same.

Anonymous said...

u have to try what u hope will work

lynwood n.c.