PDA

View Full Version : Glock Stock and Camera Adapter Constructive Possession Question


nrakid88
02-01-2011, 10:57 PM
Hey all from my favorite community,

Been thinking about this for a while, ever since I read about it on some forum somewhere on the interwebs. Can I buy a glock stock, http://aa-ok.com/glock-17-tactical-collapsible-stock.html , which along with owning a glock would be constructive possession, and also buy the camera adapter, http://aa-ok.com/camera-adapter-for-glock-tactical-collapsible-stock.html, for said device, to get around constructive possession. I have read that owning the glock stock and camera adapter means no constructive possession, but not sure if that was someone's half baked idea. At any rate, I am thinking I will soon send a snail mail letter to the ATF to get a real answer to my question. Hopefully all goes well and I can legally own a shoulder stabilized camera extension, that also adapts to glocks.


Sorry that my question mark button isn't working.

nrakid88
02-01-2011, 11:02 PM
Also on a loosely connected tangent, I know a forward grip can't be used on a glock 17 as it will cause you to break the frame. The glock 18 was built with reinforcement so a forward grip can be used without being this guy, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11fcg543Jow. Has there ever been a glock 17 offered with the glock 18 reinforcement, or perhaps a proven aftermarket/user mod to reinforce the frame.

Once again, sorry my question mark button is broken.

CnCFunFactory
02-01-2011, 11:11 PM
Hey all from my favorite community,

Been thinking about this for a while, ever since I read about it on some forum somewhere on the interwebs. Can I buy a glock stock, http://aa-ok.com/glock-17-tactical-collapsible-stock.html , which along with owning a glock would be constructive possession, and also buy the camera adapter, http://aa-ok.com/camera-adapter-for-glock-tactical-collapsible-stock.html, for said device, to get around constructive possession. I have read that owning the glock stock and camera adapter means no constructive possession, but not sure if that was someone's half baked idea. At any rate, I am thinking I will soon send a snail mail letter to the ATF to get a real answer to my question. Hopefully all goes well and I can legally own a shoulder stabilized camera extension, that also adapts to glocks.


Sorry that my question mark button isn't working.

Yeah I'm not sure how that would make it legal unless it was permanently attached to the adapter ie could never be used in a Glock. That's just my thought, I'm sure greater and more intelligent folk will be along shortly.

Purple K
02-02-2011, 4:03 AM
I smell trouble boiling in that pot.

bwiese
02-02-2011, 4:31 AM
Generally speaking, constructive possesion plays against lenity outcomes.

This is why you can have a shorty upper for an AR if you own an AR pistol even though you also own AR rifles: you have a legitimate 'outlet' for its use and thus lenity (essentially taking the lenient outcome) applies.

When you start playing games with crap like Glocks vs. camera "stock pods" the risk goes up. The camera stuff might be seen as an artifice and thus there's no legit lenity outcome. $50K later you have a chance of winning the appeal perhaps.

Remember that you'll be in a courtroom in CA (likely state).

Your money, your arse. I don't think there'd be a lot of gunnie support for attempting to defend something like this either - it doesn't buy us much in the long term.

nrakid88
02-02-2011, 10:08 AM
Generally speaking, constructive possesion plays against lenity outcomes.

This is why you can have a shorty upper for an AR if you own an AR pistol even though you also own AR rifles: you have a legitimate 'outlet' for its use and thus lenity (essentially taking the lenient outcome) applies.

When you start playing games with crap like Glocks vs. camera "stock pods" the risk goes up. The camera stuff might be seen as an artifice and thus there's no legit lenity outcome. $50K later you have a chance of winning the appeal perhaps.

Remember that you'll be in a courtroom in CA (likely state).

Your money, your arse. I don't think there'd be a lot of gunnie support for attempting to defend something like this either - it doesn't buy us much in the long term.

Since it'd be a california court, the ATF letter wouldn't mean squat, i assume.

And thankfully, our DOJ will just tell me that 52 different DA's will have 52 different opinions.

That being said I am just going to write both agencies anyways. Might as well pester the dick heads.