of possession. See id. It follows logically that removing a person’s right of possession in an object does not necessarily remove all of his property interests in that object. Therefore, even though the Maryland convicted felon statute — section 445(d) — may have removed convicted felons’ possessory interests in regulated firearms, it did not remove all of their property interests. A convicted felon such as Serio may have no right to possess regulated firearms, but he may retain a constitutionally-protected property interest in those weapons. See Cooper v. City of Greenwood, 904 F.2d 302, 304-06 (5th Cir.1990)(finding that convict ed felon had ownership interest in seized firearms for purposes of due process analysis); United States v. Seifuddin, 820 F.2d 1074, 1078-79 (9th Cir.1987)(<HOLDING>); Covington v. Winger, 562 F.Supp. 115, 123-24
holding that convicted felon had nonpossessory property interest in seized firearms sufficient to confer standing to contest forfeiture holding that allegation of cipa violation is sufficient to confer standing holding that scope of property subject to forfeiture is defined by the instrument creating an interest in the property holding that a passenger who lacked a property or possessory interest in the automobile or property seized lacked standing to challenge a search of the car holding takings clause protections did not apply to an innocent owners interest in a car seized under a state forfeiture statute