There's a difference between supplying something to a group because it's too expensive/awkward for common individual ownership, vs. prohibiting individual ownership thereof.
This is correct. Further in the decision officers and dragoons of the militia were talked about. These were generally the more affluent of society at the time so had more money. Conversly they were required to outfit themselves with more gear. A Dragoon for example was to provide his own horse, sabre, two pistols, and other effects.
While a horse isn't a tank the point was that the more financial means you had, the more equipment you were to provide for yourself.
I'm not saying that the militia act prohibited anything, only saying that it stated specifically what a militia member was to supply themselves and what was to be provided by the military for militia use.