It is frustrating to read threads like this, where people use legal terms, like "constructive possession," and "constructive intent," when neither has anything to do with the ability to construct an object,.yet that is how they are being used here. There was even a claim made here that the "Thompson/Center" case (
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/504/505/) was a "constructive possession" case, when it had nothing to do with the issue of "constructive possession."
We went over this in painstaking detail in this thread:
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....old#post452818
As for "constructive intent," I don't have my copy of Black's Law Dictionary handy, but I'll try to find it later, and hopefully get a better definition/exolanation, but in the mean time I'll offer this from "find law":
https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/intent.html
"constructive intent:
intent that is inferred to exist (as from willfulness or recklessness) in relation to an act" (sic)
For example, someone sets a fire with the intent to destroy property, and commit insurance fraud, but had no intent to kill anyone, yet someone dies as a result of the fire. Their " actual intent" was to.commit financial fraud, but it can be inferred that the wilfull, and/or reckless, act of setting the fire, had the foreseeable outcome of injuring, or killing someone, even though the person who set the fire may not have had the "actual intent" to kill someone, but had the "constructive intent" to do so. Which would allow for prosecution and conviction for murder.
So could we please stop using terms, that have actual specific legal definitions, improperly?