Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-01-2011, 9:57 PM
nrakid88's Avatar
nrakid88 nrakid88 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Santa Clarita
Posts: 3,279
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default Glock Stock and Camera Adapter Constructive Possession Question

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-c...ble-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-...ble-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.
__________________

5.56 vs. 308? http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=267737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali-Shooter View Post
You are not a mall ninja. You are a defender of mall ninjas.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-01-2011, 10:02 PM
nrakid88's Avatar
nrakid88 nrakid88 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Santa Clarita
Posts: 3,279
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________

5.56 vs. 308? http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=267737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali-Shooter View Post
You are not a mall ninja. You are a defender of mall ninjas.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-01-2011, 10:11 PM
CnCFunFactory's Avatar
CnCFunFactory CnCFunFactory is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Beautiful 86406
Posts: 1,090
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nrakid88 View Post
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-c...ble-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-...ble-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.
__________________
NUNQUAM NON PARATUS

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-02-2011, 3:03 AM
Purple K's Avatar
Purple K Purple K is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN ContributorCGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Solano County
Posts: 3,118
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

I smell trouble boiling in that pot.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-02-2011, 3:31 AM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,732
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-02-2011, 9:08 AM
nrakid88's Avatar
nrakid88 nrakid88 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Santa Clarita
Posts: 3,279
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
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.
__________________

5.56 vs. 308? http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=267737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali-Shooter View Post
You are not a mall ninja. You are a defender of mall ninjas.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:45 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.